Immigrants, Numbers and Crime
In this post we're going to cover a few issues related to the problem of illegal immigration in the U.S.
First is crime. Last week's Guard the Borders Blogburst homes in on the simple fact that some illegal aliens commit crimes in America, and more Americans have died as a result of illegal immigration than from the battle in Iraq:
... illegal aliens in the United States are more than fourteen times as lethal (14.48 actually) as a full scale armed conflict.
Some pro-immigration advocates attempt to twist the question by asking "So you think Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than people of other ethncities?"
But that is not the question at all. The question is: Would those specific crimes have been committed if those specific illegal aliens were not in the U.S.? The clear answer to that question is - "no". If the perpetrator was not here, the crime would not have been committed.
The documentary, Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border, depicts the real-life suffering that has been caused by the massive influx of illegal aliens across the Arizona-Mexico border. Stories include families who own land on the border, land which they can no longer use, and property which has been destroyed by the invaders. The point has nothing to do with the race of the invaders. The point is simply if the illegals were not coming across, these American citizens would not have been victimized.
(Anyone who wants to watch the documentary can let me know and I will lend them the DVD.)
Whether we are talking about destruction in the Tucson sector, or gang violence in Sterling, Virginia, the fact of the matter is the crimes identified in these cases are definitely being committed by illegal aliens. Maybe the criminals are a tiny segment of the whole. Maybe local citizens are committing more crimes - who cares? The issue at hand is people in the U.S. illegally who are committing crimes here.
If they did not have a safe landing area here, they would not be committing crimes here.
Next is the question of "numbers."
After the high point of immigration into the U.S. from 1835-1920, America closed its gates for 40 years. Several factors illustrate the differences between then and now, but the halt to immigration was by far the most decisive. Immigrants assimilated into the dominant culture because the latter remained numerically dominant. They became Americans because the culture they moved into was American.
In the latest Guard the Borders blogburst, Nan Matthis notes that "simple math" explains the current concern.
Going By The Numbers
by Nancy Matthis
Understanding the impact of illegal immigration does not depend on accepting partisan opinions. It is just the result of doing some simple math.
In a previous article, Illegals Deadlier Than War On Terror, we compared the numbers of United States citizens killed by illegal aliens to the tally of our troops killed in the war on terror. In response to that article, one of our readers wrote asking whether we had seen the video produced by NumbersUSA titled Immigration by the Numbers. He asked, â€œI wonder how accurate it is?â€
This widely distributed video uses gumballs in a jar to visually demonstrate the impact of numbers that increase exponentially rather than linearly. These are mathematical concepts that are immediately meaningful to folk with a technical background, but may be harder to understand for others. The answer to our readerâ€™s question is that the video IS accurate. It is not based on partisan opinion. It is just a very graphic illustration of an algebraic equation.
You can view a clip from the video here. Roy Beck of NumbersUSA is not depending on any esoteric data. Heâ€™s just doing the math, based on the US Census numbers, which actually grossly UNDERESTIMATE the number of illegals in the United States.
Read all about the numbers, here.
Finally, Vox Day observes that assimilation is most in question:
The increasingly lawless behavior of the pro-immigration forces in America is both informative and telling. It is a clear warning of precisely what these forces stand for as well as what they hope America will become. For the problem is not that America is being invaded by millions of semi-civilized aliens with no cultural or historical ties to American traditions and liberties, or respect for them, but that America is being transformed by these invaders.
As Umberto Eco pointed out in his 1990 essay entitled ''Migrazioni,'' there is a crucial difference between immigration and migration. In the case of immigration, it is the immigrant who is transformed. This was the case in historical immigrations from Ireland, Germany, Italy and Scandinavia, where the immigrating generation quickly adapted to the language and culture of its new land and the second and third generations were all but impossible to distinguish from Americans who could trace their roots back to the original colonies.
This adaptation was made possible by three factors. First, the desire of the immigrants to become Americans. This can be seen in the readiness with which past immigrants changed their names and quickly adopted English, to such an extent that the third generation rarely spoke more than a word or two of their grandfather's tongue. Second, the similarities between the Western, Christian cultures of Europe and the Western, Christian culture of the United States. Third, the number and the proportion of immigrants was smaller, for example, 3.5 million Irish immigrants arriving over a 60-year period versus more than 9.8 million Mexicans entering in the last two decades.
Obviously, this is not immigration, this is a migration, and in the case of a migration, it is the destination that is transformed, not the immigrants.
Destination transformation is a perverse, but common consequence of migratory behavior. While it seems counterintuitive to leave one place in favor of another, then seek to recreate the very situation one previously fled, this is actually normal human behavior. And despite the inflammatory attacks on those who very reasonably oppose this transformation, there is nothing wrong with opposing it. Does it make a Washingtonian racist to oppose the Californication of his state? Is a Naples, Fla. resident bigoted simply because he dislikes sitting in gridlocked traffic all winter as his city is temporarily transformed into a southern suburb of Minneapolis?
Of course not. The real distinction between Brown America and America is not racial, but rather cultural and ideological. The problem with Brown America is not that sunscreen sales will take a hit, but that Brown America will be indistinguishable from every other semi-civilized third-world country in its disregard for human liberty, its contempt for law and limited government, and its short-sighted abuse of society's most productive classes. One can already see this situation developing in Mexifornia, and the fact that Brown America's most enthusiastic proponents so readily demonstrate their disdain for elemental American concepts such as the freedom of speech and the right to free assembly highlights the great ideological divide.
Read all of Vox Day's column here.
I grant the characterization of "brown" does little to clarify the problem. It muddles the problem. But Vox Day's wrath is focused on a distinct subset of the pro-illegal movement - the subgroup that promotes alien ideology, especially with regard to U.S. law, as superior.
My take is: The United States is a singular example of intelligent government, despite all its manifest flaws. Those who come here need to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Immigrants, Numbers and Crime.
TrackBack URL for this entry: