This article really got my goat today:
GOP should remember: Data show immigrants enforce, not threaten, US values
According to the Pew Research Center, 46 percent of Americans believe “the growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values.” But the data show otherwise. Newcomers reinforce – not undermine – American values.
So, what are these “American values” that these immigrants enforce? According to the author of this article, they are:
- Knowledge of American history and civics.
- Willingness to defend one’s country (patriotism).
- Law abidance.
- Religiosity.
- Intact families.
- Doing well in school.
- Starting businesses.
Let’s take a closer look at them.
Studies show that immigrants applying for citizenship surpass American citizens on tests of knowledge of American history and civics. To take one example, in a 2012 telephone poll, Xavier University researchers found that 35 percent of Americans failed the civics section of the US naturalization test. In contrast, 97.5 percent of immigrants applying for citizenship passed the test in 2012.
Of course immigrants applying for citizenship surpass American citizens on these tests. They are required to know these things in order to get their citizenship. In fact, here is the list of requirements that have to be met for someone to be eligible for U.S. Citizenship:
If you are a green card holder of at least 5 years, you must meet the following requirements in order to apply for naturalization:
- Be 18 or older at the time of filing
- Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
- Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
- Have continuous residence in the United States as a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
- Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
- Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
- Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
- Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law
So there you have it. People who wish to become U.S. citizens are required to know these things in order to become citizens. Is it that surprising that they then study hard to pass an exam that determines whether or not they become citizens? I think not. And it’s not hard to do better than most U.S. citizens on these exams, as the educational system in the U.S. no longer teaches history to students; it is too busy teaching things like the benefits of ‘diversity’ and how to put a condom on a banana.
The article then goes off the rails on a Crazy Train:
The willingness to defend one’s country is generally considered a reliable measure of patriotism. As General George S. Patton once said, “The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country.”
Immigrants have served with distinction in the US military in every major armed conflict since the Revolutionary War. And according to the Center for Naval Analysis, the three-month attrition rate of non-citizen soldiers is nearly twice that of US citizens.
Sounds like we all need to do our part. After all, “Service Guarantees Citizenship”:
Many thousands of men and women have made the journey from non-citizen immigrant to citizen while fighting, and sometimes dying, in the US military. The Pentagon estimates that roughly 8,000 non-citizens join the military every year, which can be a path to citizenship.
Do you know what they call non-citizens who fight in other countries’ militaries? Mercenaries. And why do they do this? For “private gain and material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party.” These immigrant mercenaries aren’t fighting in our military because they love the United States, they fight for the benefits that they will obtain from doing so.
Law abidance is another basic marker of good citizenship. And studies show that both legal and illegal immigrants are less likely than the native born to break the law. That was the conclusion of a 2010 Cato Institute report, which cited a 2008 study by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the state with the highest number of immigrants. It found that “US-born men have an institutionalization rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men.”
Overall, the PPIC researchers found that American-born adult men are two-and-a-half times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men, including both legal and illegal immigrants. The Cato report cites Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, who in 2006 concluded that immigrants have not increased crime in America, and that they could actually be part of the reason why crime has decreased so much.
The problem with this assertion is that there is too much missing here to prove the authors thesis. Where are the foreign-born men from? What is their socioeconomic background? Are we comparing poor black men to educated men who came here from China and India? If so, it stands to reason that a college professor from China isn’t going to be incarcerated for selling drugs on the street. The type of crime also matters:
Nevertheless, it is also fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators. That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we simply allow the “good’ in we get the “bad” along with them. Ignoring the fact that just being an illegal alien already makes one a criminal, the question is, how much really “bad” is acceptable and what price are we willing to pay in terms of the collateral damage being inflicted by simply allowing all of them in?
***
Nevertheless, it is also fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators. That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we simply allow the “good’ in we get the “bad” along with them. Ignoring the fact that just being an illegal alien already makes one a criminal, the question is, how much really “bad” is acceptable and what price are we willing to pay in terms of the collateral damage being inflicted by simply allowing all of them in?
Kinda blows away that whole ‘law abidance’ thing, doesn’t it?
Religiosity is also a traditional American value. In his book “Democracy in America,” Alexis De Tocqueville wrote: “Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.” Legal immigrants are more religious than native-born Americans. The most important recent shift in religious observance has been the rise of the “nones” – those with no religious affiliation, whose share of the adult population reached 20 percent in 2012, according to the Pew Forum. In contrast, a May 2013 Pew Form survey found that only 14 percent of legal immigrants are religiously unaffiliated, a share that has remained relatively stable over many years.
Religiosity is defined as “a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine).” That is, religiosity refers to how many times one goes to religious services, practicing certain rituals, revering certain symbols, and the fervor of one’s beliefs in certain doctrines about deities and the afterlife.
Religiosity is not an American value. Christianity is. Note that one does not have to be a Christian to meet the author’s definition of religiosity. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims all go to religious services, practice certain rituals, and have beliefs about deities and the afterlife. However, practitioners of those religions do not believe in the Christian God. Many of the Hindu gods are barbaric, Buddhists don’t believe there is a god, and followers of Islam worship a moon god. Suffice it to say that they are not going to have the same values and mores as a Christian. And the fact is that the U.S. was founded by white Christians, for white Christians.
Also, as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush pointed out in a recent speech, immigrants’ families are more likely to be intact than those of native-born Americans. According to the Census Bureau’s most recent data, 39 percent of births to native-born Americans are to unwed mothers, while just 24 percent of births to foreign-born mothers are out of wedlock.
Intact families are not an American value. The divorce rate in the U.S. is around 50%, so this claim is false. Intact families used to be valued in this country, at least until the government got involved in marriages. No-fault divorce and other institutional changes since the 1960s have eroded the legal support for marriage and family structure.
In many cases, native-born Americans aren’t doing as well in school as the children of recent immigrants. A February Pew Research Center survey found that immigrants’ children are more likely than the general population to have a bachelor’s degree (36 percent to 31 percent). The report also found that “second-generation Hispanics and Asians place more importance than does the general public on hard work and career success.”
Note that phrase, recent immigrants. It is quite possible that this study included foreigners who came here to get their degree and remained in the U.S. after graduation. Not to mention the affirmative-action programs that favor immigrants and foreigners over native-born students.
Finally, native-born Americans start fewer businesses than immigrants. In fact, they were half as likely as foreign-born Americans to start a new business in 2011.
There’s a big reason why immigrants are more likely to start a new business: the federal government subsidizes immigrant businesses with low-interest loans and grant programs. For example, ever wonder why so many hotels and motels are run by immigrants? I would start such a business, but I am not “economically disadvantaged” because I am white and male.
All in all, this is an opinion piece that is backed up by cherry-picked articles that seem to reinforce the author’s point: that the Republicans in Congress should pass an immigration bill that will let more immigrants into the country. Personally, I was stunned that this was written by someone affiliated with the Christian Science Monitor. So much for that news site being ‘conservative’.
