A thought experiment about immigration

[Volokh, Eugene]

	It seems to me that there's a limit to the utility of arguments
from past immigrations.  The Puritans were a radical extremist religious
group when they immigrated.  They set up something of a theocracy that,
to my knowledge, did some pretty bad things before it was displaced.  By
the standards of their era, they were probably not so bad.  But if
future radical Muslims really were going to be like the Puritans, and as
influential as the Puritans (and I take it that Frank Cross's quite
sensible point is that they likely wouldn't be nearly as influential),
that would confirm my fears, it seems to me, not disprove them.

	This reminds me of a cartoon that I once saw:  Some American
Indians were watching what was meant to be Columbus's ships, and
complaining to each other that the passengers were "just a bunch of
illegal immigrants."  I think the cartoon was intended to be a criticism
of the critics of illegal immigration, and a reminder that our ancestors
were once immigrants who came without permission of the existing
inhabitants.  But it seems to me that the cartoon demonstrated the exact
opposite:  The American Indians were of course ruined by these illegal
immigrants, and would have been in many ways far better off if the
Spaniards and all who came after them were promptly deported.

	My concern about radical Muslims, as I suggested in earlier
posts, is simply that I wouldn't want to be governed by radical Muslims,
just as I wouldn't want to be governed by Puritans (but have nothing
against being governed by other immigrants); I would think that most on
this list would share the same preference, though they may disagree with
me on how to implement that preference.  I'm also not nearly as sure as
others that the process of becoming American citizens will either change
the immigrants' views, or will assure that only those who support the
positions that most of us support will become citizens.  (One answer to
"why would a person go through the trouble of becoming a citizen if
he/she did not want to be a member of the community" is "because it's
much safer and economically better to live here as a citizen than to
live here as a noncitizen or to live in many other places as a
citizen.")

	Eugene
	

Yvette Barksdale writes:

> I am late to this discusssion (I am no longer on sabbatical, 
> so I have less time for lists.). But question - why are 
> radical Muslims a special problem here. Is there some reason 
> why they are more problematic immigrants than other groups. 
>  
> First, what is the nature of the "radical" that you are 
> concerned about - is it religious extremism - if so, I'm not 
> sure why we care about that, this is a matter of private 
> religious belief.  And, that same standard would have 
> excluded the Puritans, woudln't it have? weren't they a 
> radical extremist religious group when they immigrated. Yet 
> we seem to have survived them.  
>  
> Perhaps the idea is that these groups want a religious state 
> - but then ideology, not religion, is you real concern - that 
> they want to jettison our democracy. I certainly think that 
> we can require allegiance to democratic values as a condition 
> for citizenship into a democratic state - but again this is a 
> conduct based standard, not a religious standard - and it 
> would apply to every immigrant, regardless of nationality.  
> You argue that maybe they will swear allegiance to democracy, 
> but then still storm the citadel - but then you are talking 
> about a deliberate take over attempt. Otherwise, why would a 
> person go through the trouble of becoming a citizen if he/she 
> did not want to be a member of the community. Certainly, if 
> there was a group that was trying to mount a take over of the 
> American poliical system essentially as  an act of war (a 
> coup by votes),  that would be another matter. But the idea 
> that run of the mill immigrants are storming the citadel, 
> trying to take over our country, seems a stretch. (indeed, 
> don't most of these really radical folks think our country is 
> the evil empire - and thus no more want to immigrate here, 
> than we wanted to immigrate to Soviet Russia. ) Morever, even 
> if they want to, I don't think there are enough of them to 
> actually get it done. 
>  
> As you state, maybe the concern (a concern about culture, not 
> political community. This is another matter, but we have 
> always incorporated different cultures, into our nation, that 
> is part of our greatness.  And it is true that the new 
> cultures have changed the old culture, but that is generally 
> a good thing, isn't it. 
>  
> Of course, residential, economic, educational,  segregation, 
> etc has meant that racial. cultural, intellecutal, and 
> economic elites in our society have been able to cordon 
> themselves off from a lot of this cultural change - and to 
> have insulated their communities from "outsiders" -  thus 
> preserving their hold  on defining what passes as 
> "mainstream" America. This is a luxury of power.  A group's 
> power to exclude others as undesirable insures that its 
> standards will define what qualifies as success. (e.g. the 
> George Mason example - the power over standards (both 
> governance and educational), less so than culture, or even 
> ideas,  may be what is really at stake in your hypo - I'm not 
> sure people woudl care all that much about hte kinds of 
> conversations folks would have in the faculty lounge. its the 
> ability to vote standards that people would care about.) 
>  
> I think it would be a good thing for the elite to open 
> themselves up to outside influences - what one might find is 
> that when the other voices are let in, there's a lot they are 
> saying that it would be beneficial to hear.  (For example, 
> even radical religious groups may have ideas about fidelity, 
> piety, self-restraint etc, that other people might benefit 
> from. (say tabloid newspapers, for example.)
>  
> But of course, every group wants to pull up the ladder behind them.