Optimism – Or Irony? – On Immigration Maimon Schwarzschild

Victor Davis Hanson suggests what amounts to amnesty and citizenship for the millions of (mostly Mexican) illegal immigrants now in this country, but only in exchange for a genuine commitment on the part of the new citizens to becoming “Americans” – not only by learning English, but also by identifying primarily with their new country, not their old.

At more recent rallies, protestors have carried red, white and blue banners. And they’ve voiced a desire to become U.S. citizens…

[But] will most of the illegal-alien protesters truly wish to become full U.S. citizens with all that entails?

In America, it doesn’t involve racial or ethnic allegiance. Rather, U.S. citizenship asks immigrants to make linguistic, political and social concessions.

So, imagine an immigration compromise that, in exchange for strict border enforcement, allows the majority of the current 11 million resident illegal aliens to remain here to start their citizenship process. Wouldn’t it then be natural to expect these future Americans to understand that U.S. citizenship carries as many responsibilities as rights?

In a country that is increasingly multiethnic and multiracial, it no longer makes sense to rely on bilingual government documents and services for a particular ethnic group. Such duplication is expensive and hampers English immersion. It’s also the road to tribalism, whose bitter fruits we know well from the Balkans to Rwanda. Those who now march professing their desire to become Americans must quickly learn the English language, as have hundreds of past immigrant groups.

As American citizens, newcomers must also realize that no nation can remain sovereign without controllable borders. So Americans would hope that they also would support border enforcement of their new country. Employer sanctions, more guards and a barrier will start to end the present unworkable system that led to their own ambiguous status in the first place.

Does Hanson think this likely?  Or would such an amnesty — following past amnesties — encourage supporters of essentially uncontrolled immigration to believe that this country is unable or unwilling to enforce any immigration law, at least vis-a-vis Mexico?  Is there evidence of any desire on the part of organised supporters of essentially unregulated immigration from Mexico to discourage cultural or political separatism, or to embrace anything like the “social contract” that Hanson proposes?