Centerfield

An interesting approach to cases where a law is being ignored/violated by huge numbers of people. Wonder if he would apply the same logic to the War on Drugs?

That's a really bad analogy. What exactly should we raise the speed limit to? And when that is consistently broken by 5 miles and hour? And then? And then? I'd just as soon the guy weaving in and out of traffic to get there a little faster was taken off the road. But it doesn't have even the slightest connection to immigration.

Not much meat in the article, but I do agree that harsher laws would drive illegals farther underground and that is not a good thing. Raising immigration quotas might be helpful, but there are +'s and -'s.

My only fear is that we reach a rate of immigration (legal and otherwise) where keeping a common culture (assimilation) is to hard to maintain. A second language is a bad thing in this regard.

An interesting approach to cases where a law is being ignored/violated by huge numbers of people. Wonder if he would apply the same logic to the War on Drugs?

I would apply a different logic to both current legal migration thresholds and the War on Drugs: neither is working. In point of fact, neither the numbers of immigrants nor the price of drugs seem to be much affected.

My only fear is that we reach a rate of immigration (legal and otherwise) where keeping a common culture

This is, I'd say, worth worrying about. Note that our legal immigrants go through more assimilation mechanisms, so I'd say we'd actually do better with more realistic, higher legal thresholds.

I agree that that we ought to acknowledge the value of a common culture. Obviously history has shown us that assimilation is desirable, and it has also shown us that there's worth to letting our culture evolve as various waves of immigration add their flavors. When it comes to the notion of tolerance, I dearlt wish more folks would understand it in the same sense that engineers do. Too tight is no good, and too loose is also no good. Both cause too much heat, friction, and wear and tear.

In particular, I DO think that having one common language is a huge plus in regard to maintaining a common culture. It's like driving on one side of the road. It doesn't matter which side we pick, but there's serious value in having a conventional way of doing things.

I think a pretty short list of things would help us serve purposes. If you come to this country you must:

1)Have a job ready or show an expectation that there's one there(unless you're being granted political asylum for urgent reasons). So if you get a guest permit to pick fruit, maybe you don't need a note from the person whose fruit you'll be picking, just some documentation that you've been given a permit to be in the legal worker pool.

2) Obey our laws, and in cases where your native culture conflicts with our laws, you have to agree to obey our laws. If you really want to privilege your culture instead of our laws, there's an easy way to make that choice. Go back to your native country where they're the accepted way of doing things. Or if you really want, you can try to change our laws to legalize, say, a clitorectomy for your daughter, but don't hold your breath. And in the meantime, you still have to obey them.

3)Make a free and open committment to speaking english because that's the language most Americans speak, and we value the notion that ALL americans ought to be able to communicate with one another.

FWIW, I think JJ's analogy is quite apt for the purpose he used it, and perfectly illustrative. Laws may or may not be well crafted, so the fact that they are being broken can mean different things depending on their quality. But I'm not that interested in arguing the quality of analogies today.

My sense is that illegal immigrants to more good than harm to this country, but I don't know this as a matter of fact, so I'll skip attempts at policy making.

What I think the take-away from the article should be is an attitude adjustment. People need to get their emotions under control and not allow themselves to be demagogued into digging in on either side of the debate. As always, an objective review of available information will better serve our ability to make good decisions. At this point, I wouldn't think the hard-line approach very worthwhile, but I am open to reasonable arguments contrary to my current position. It's not a matter of religous-like faith.

Brian, I think the (frequently expressed) concerns about immigrants speaking English are way over-done. The first generation of immigrants have always kept their native language for most purposes; they learn just enough English to get by here. The second generation (even if they live in a neighborhood where everybody speaks the parents' native language) are fluent in English. The third generation speaks English, and very rarely knows the grand-parents' native language at all -- unless they take it in school.

Which is why I can speak to my wife's grandparents in their native language and she cannot. I took it in college, while she took something else.

Oh, I definitely agree. I did a grad project where I interviewed 6 asians about the model minority hyothesis and assimilation and so on, and 2 each were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation. Learned alot. Assimilation is inevitable over time.

My comment is directed more at the extent to which we, the welcoming nation, ought to be required to accomodate immigrants. If you ask me, I think that things like multi-lingual election ballots and native-language instruction ought to be strictly optional policies. That doesn't mean such policies aren't desirable or efficacious, it just means that immigrants aren't entitled to them. Entitlements are reserved for members, and non-natives who wish to become members should have no problem with the requirement that they learn the language decently if they want to become members.

And I have plenty of wiggle room on this, it's just that I think ultimately there needs to be an understanding that ultimately the honus has to be on the immigrant, not the host nation.

Well I've previously expressed my great laisse faire attitude for immigrants and my belief that it helps the country. I'm now intrigued by the politics: 1) Where's the Democratic bill on immigration now that "they have control" 2) How will the "next steps" in getting tough on immigration hurts Republicans? (See article from AZ Republic)