In the August 21 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Tunku Varadarajan, executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a legal permanent resident, takes the left to task for its attitude towards immigrants. That attitude is many things at once: paternalistic, patronizing, opportunistic, cynical, simplistic, and misleading.
Having watched all four nights of the Democratic
National Convention, Mr. Varadarajan “found the Democrats’
obsession with immigrants grating.” That’s because “scarcely a speech or
segment went by in which a fetish wasn’t made of immigrants. They were
portrayed, almost uniformly, as victims—hapless people thwarted by ‘systemic
racism’ and American injustice, moored forever in a netherworld of murk and
fear by President Trump’s refusal to be humane.”
It is unclear whether the author himself believes that
President Trump’s policies on immigration represent a “refusal to be humane,”
or whether he is simply paraphrasing the left’s caricatured view of these
policies. Either way, protecting our borders and ensuring that foreign
nationals do not take advantage of the United States – be it by those
attempting to get their foot in the door through meritless asylum claims, or
those attempting to abuse America’s taxpayer-funded social safety net – is
hardly inhumane. It is common sense. That having been said, Mr. Varadarajan
makes many good points.
The author calls out the left for being “guilty of
conflating the people who live in this country without authorization with
those—a significant majority of immigrants—who are here legally.” With its “relentless
focus on the undocumented margins,” he continues, the left does “an enormous
disservice to [millions of]lawful immigrants who go about their dignified
business away from the spotlight, getting on with such concerns as work, school
and family, grateful for the opportunity to be in America—grateful, in fact,
for the opportunity to be Americans.”
He also reminds American leftists and liberals – who
seem to have an “obsession with indigent illegal residents” – that “many
immigrants have come to America from countries where the state interferes in
people’s lives while pretending to help. What many of them really want (…) is
for the state to step aside and let them carve out their own destinies.”
Mr. Varadarajan also certainly has a point when
stating that “progressives, for their own reasons, scoff at the very notion of ‘assimilation.’”
After all, leftists often view asking immigrants to assimilate as an arrogant
and oppressive attempt to impose one’s culture on others.
However, he is on much shakier ground when he seeks to contrast identity-politics-embracing leftists with so-called “nativists” who “regard the foreign-born as inherently unassimilable.” Admittedly, in a country as populous (330 million inhabitants) and diverse as the United States, one is bound to find some people who express outlandish or extreme points of view. So, some “nativists” who hold such crude, simplistic, and deterministic views exist.
However, being an immigrant and a naturalized citizen,
I have personally never met even one such “nativist” who regards “the
foreign-born as inherently unassimilable” – and I have lived in the U.S. for
almost 30 years, and have interacted with many people representing various
currents of right-of-center American politics (from “moderates” through
libertarians to the most rock-ribbed of conservatives) for two decades. Even
the most “hawkish” of so-called “immigration hawks” have all, at least in my
experience, seen assimilation as both desirable and attainable.
It is difficult to quibble with the following
statement made by the author, however: “perpetuating the category of ‘immigrant’
involves
the making permanent of an identity that is by definition temporary.” The
leftists, according to Mr. Vaadarajan, “would like many of us to embrace a
transitory state as an aspiration in itself. ‘E pluribus unum’—one out of
many—is less attractive to them than a creed of ‘Many out of one.’” That is an
insightful argument that the critics of the left’s pandering don’t make often
enough.
But perhaps the most important fragment of the op-ed is that the left’s “compulsion to create ever more categories of victimized minorities by adding ‘immigrants’ to the list of the maltreated serves neither immigrants nor the country. You can see the short-term advantage to the Democrats of an ever-expanding pool of voters from abroad. But I—and millions like me—did not regard the U.S. as a country where you can never acquire a mainstream identity, and where political forces tell you that the surest way to become accepted is to nurse your grievances forever.”
Be First to Comment