Diversity

It’s become increasingly popular in recent years for liberals to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic virtue. From multicultural festivals to political speeches, the message is always the same, “our differences make us stronger”. (The definition of diversity being "a wide range of sub-cultures and value systems".) However, a recent study based on interviews with nearly 30,000 people across the country has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that “the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.” The study found that virtually all measures of civic involvement are lower in the more diverse settings, with more diverse communities tending to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents. Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." "People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

The study comes when the American melting pot is the center of a hot political debate over immigration, and it challenges both sides of the argument. It’s also, and somewhat prematurely, being cited as proof that large-scale immigration severely harms the nation's society. But still, the immigration problem has bedeviled this nation for well over a century now, and we’ve managed to survive, mostly by letting time and established immigration limits solve the problem. Before those limits were established however, our larger cities bore the brunt of immigration, and severely suffered from the same ailments that Professor Putnam describes.

Since the 1830’s the United States has seen a steady stream of immigration almost totally from Europe. These immigrants proved troublesome for the cities, but with national expansion they were assimilated for the most part. Still, large slum areas developed in every city, and proved impossible to extinguish. Shortly after the Civil War, the United States was inundated with a flood of immigrants from all over the world, but still primarily from Europe. These immigrants, like their forerunners, having an alien culture and little or no knowledge of the English language, found themselves banding together along ethnic lines merely to survive. (At least you could ask the neighbors where the grocery store was with a good chance that they’d understand you.) With this, our major cities found themselves being divided into a wide assortment of “districts” (for lack of a better word), based on ethnicity, religion, and culture. Who hasn’t heard of the “Old Bowery”, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown”? With the skills they brought with them, most immigrants found jobs of one sort or another, and by learning the language they were able to spread across the country and become part of the American culture. Look around you and consider the national origin of your friends and neighbors last names… they are after all descended from immigrants, and probably their families arrived in this country less than two hundred years ago. My own great grandfather got off the boat with a shilling or two in his pocket, and speaking only Gaelic. The only job he could find was with the Union Army, and of necessity he learned to speak “American English”. After the Civil War he went to work with a good many other Irishmen building the Union Pacific Railroad, and found himself in the wild and woolly west, which was certainly a far cry from his native Tipperary! Within a few years and with a lot of hard work he owned a New Mexico cattle ranch. Not bad for an Irish immigrant lad in the 1870’s.

Following WW II the US again felt a surge of European immigrants and soon assimilated them with no major difficulties, because of cultural similarities. In the aftermath of the Korean and Vietnam wars we played host to a surge of immigration from the orient. This time around we had problems that continue today because of the vast difference between oriental cultures and our European based national culture. Still, that wave of immigration was limited for the most part, and with considerable effort our society was able to absorb most of our new citizens. Today however we’re being inundated by a virtual flood of illegal immigrants from third world countries, with an even greater variation of languages, religions, and cultural backgrounds… and who resist assimilation into main stream America. Making things even more difficult, a large portion of these immigrants have no saleable skills, and in many cases are relatively uneducated by our standards. Unfortunately for them, the market for unskilled day labor (or guerrilla fighters) is rapidly drying up in this country, they’re forced to depend on welfare or crime to survive, and of necessity continue to live in assorted “ghettos” in our cities, often completely ignoring our laws and social standards. The “promise of America” has certainly changed over the last seventy-five years, and apparently the “word” hasn’t gotten out to everyone yet!

Discounting the questions continuously being raised by special interests about the quota system, legal immigrants are supposed to meet certain standards. Among those are requirements that they’re not bringing various contagious or hard to treat disease with them. Another is that they must not have a criminal background. Face it, we’ve got more than enough home grown criminals without importing even more, and we certainly don’t need additional “gang members” in our cities! They are also required to have a sponsor who will be responsible for seeing that they do not become a burden on the public treasury. I see nothing ethically wrong with these requirements, after all, it is our country, and the legal citizens should have the right to determine who’s coming in, and who’s not! I have stated repeatedly that I do not oppose immigration… and I still don’t… as long as that immigration is legal and controlled. The term “legal immigration” is pretty well self-explanatory I’d think. On the other hand, congress seems to need a definition of “Controlled immigration”. That is, quite simply, we need to limit by whatever means necessary the number of immigrants each year to only those that our American culture is able to absorb!

After all, if they don’t want to be “American” as we understand it, perhaps they should stay home and solve their nations problems, rather than running away from them by coming here and adding to our problems.