Interseting article by Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight of Timothy Dwight College, Yale University. He describes a quietly divisive issue within America's Jewish community:
"For Jews, the immigration debate pits the heart against the head. In their gut, many feel that substantially reducing immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. But a growing number believes that maintaining this policy betrays their children and grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration means importing mass anti-Semitism. The upsurge of violent anti-Semitism in Western Europe tracks perfectly with mass immigration, especially of Muslims. Mass immigration is also the generator of Balkanizing notions of extreme multiculturalism. Having worked for nearly a century through communal organizations, the courts, and interfaith dialogue to achieve a tolerant and cohesive society largely free of anti-Semitism, it’s anguishing for American Jews to watch current immigration erase this outcome. However uncomfortable, American Jews must grapple with the issue: they have a greater stake than other Americans in how this policy plays out."
The issue of immigration these days crosses left/right boundaries, and raises profound questions for those who engage with it. "High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry" is an interesting read on a controversial subject. While Steinlight himself favours restricted immigration, his article provides a serious and provocative starting point no matter which side of the debate one favours. The article also deals at some length with Islamism as a political ideology, the threat it represents, and the uniqueness of the Jewish immigrant experience in America.
Why should mass immigration mean we have to let in people from the Islamic world if these are not willing to prove their loyalty and live by our customs and laws? Additionally, why is it not possible to teach people as to what the U.S. is all about? Loyalty oaths are a good thing.
Anyone who comes to the U.S. must sign up for loyalty to America first—NOT choose a religion or ideology over democratic values—Muslims included. Muslims should be asked, point blank, whether they support the misanthropy and bigotry in the Qur'an and then be require to swear on the Qur'an and sign a paper disavowing same if they want to obtain residency. Taqiyya should also be addressed.
I do not believe that Europe will accept anti-Semitism and neither will the U.S. or most of the civilized world—Latin America included. Already, Europe has detention/deportation camps for those deemed a threat to democratic principles and the same will happen in the U.S. if terrorism demands it. And of course, no seditious imams from the radical Wahhabist sect should be permitted to enter the land or to lead any mosque.
The greatest thing, the most unique thing about the U.S. above all other democratic nations is the fact that we embrace and fully assimilate our immigrants and make them Americans, not just resident aliens. As an immigrant to the U.S. I have faith that we shall not fail to continue to support the rule of law for all peoples and go after those who do not subscribe to same.
Even without immigration, Muslims will propagate profusely and their numbers will increase. Their hatred of Jews (and Christians) is inbred, and this will cuase untold problem in the next 100 years. I am glad I will not be around, but my grandchildren will (I hope.)
Dear Lili - I don't think any oath will be helpful. While we may "embrace and fully assimilate our immigrants," I doubt that Muslims will embrace America.
Also, if you will open your eyes, you will see that Europe has accepted and "embraced" anti-Semitism. And already, 80% of American mosques are controlled by radical Whahabis.
most imigrants to the USA are from Latin America or non-Muslim Asia. Many of the muslim immigrants we do have are opposed to fundamentalist forces in the Islamic world, eg refugees from Iran. Even among the others, we havent seen the kind of antisemitism we've seen in Europe, probably because the US is better at assimilation and creating economic opportunity than Europe (where are the festering Islamic housing estates in the US?) I think most Jews will judge immigration as all other Americans do - 1. What are the benefits to the economy? (including funding social security, etc 2. What are the costs to native unskilled workers? 3. What can be done to mitigate the costs to native unskilled workers? 4. What can we do to advance assimilation? 5. What level optimizes the economic benefits, the social costs, and the requirements for investment in assimilation?
My own belief is that there needs to be a national discussion of what sort of immigration policy is best for the U. S. in the 21st century. That's difficult to do with the unholy alliance between nostalgics ("We're a nation of immigrants") and those with an apparently insatiable thirst for minimum wage labor.
I'm not completely certain what form that policy should take. But I'm pretty certain it won't be the open borders policy that the Wall Street Journal, for one, appears to favor.
Jews were put at the front of the immigration line because they were under oppression overseas. And that is the difference between them and Muslims now. Muslims in Sudan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other democratic Muslim countries have never been oppressed - unless of course we want to invade them. No, that doesn't matter because Steinlight is more concerned about Israel than oppression. To convince people he insults those Jews that are for open immigration as somehow being traitors to all Jews. I'll give him this though, at least he's honest about it.
This is the wrong way to combat anti-semitism. I think a campaign by Jews to shut Muslims (and others) out of America would only increase anti-Semitism around the world with Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It would be seen as the Jewish minority controlling the world's only superpower (even though it's not true). Why doesn't he welcome other people. While they influence us in ways, we will influence them with our tolerant culture. He points out that anti-Semitism is at an all time low in America yet predicts that 5 million Arabs or Muslims will influence 300 million white Christians more than the other way around. It's not like we've never had a group immigrating here that has absolutely hated another group that is already here. I think this article is nothing new. We've always had people not wanting immigrants out of fear. It's not significantly different just because he is Jewish. Anti-semitism will not thrive in this country because the people that Steinlight seems to abhor, those who promote multiculturalism, won't allow it.
"300 million white Christians"
If it where 300 million Christians, then perhaps it wouldn't work. But there simply aren't that many practicing Christians, not by a longshot. The problem is that they will be hamstrung and unable to stop Muslim anti-semitism where it does surface. It takes only a small number to intimidate.
"But there simply aren't that many practicing Christians, not by a longshot".
Correct, my bad. An overstatement, but I still think that a growing majority of people in this country will not stand for anti-semitism or untolerant views of any kind. I also think those non practicing Christians that you mention will influence immigrants in the same positive way.
Jeff,
Arabs in the countries you named aren't oppressed? And those countries are democracies? I hope that was writ ironical.
But if they are, it's by their fellow Muslims--nothing to see here, move right along...
(Personally, I think it's yet another case of bigotry of low expectations--not in noting that they are oppressed by their fellows, mind you, but in holding the Muslim or Arab worlds congenitally incapable of doing better.)
Kirk,
About Arabs vs Muslims, all I can say is "Oops, my bad." About your closing note, as a literature PhD, I'm well aware that texts can admit of multiple interpretations. Still, I have a hard time seeing how you get "bigotry of low expectations--not in noting that they are oppressed by their fellows, mind you, but in holding the Muslim or Arab worlds congenitally incapable of doing better" from a mere mention of the undeniable facts that the people in the countries Jeff mentioned are oppressed and those countries are hardly democracies.
Wow, sorry. I thought I was being over the top in my sarcasm there. Yes, they are completely oppressed and without democracy in most Muslim countries. That's the problem I had with the article. In my opinion, Steinlight dismisses that oppression so as to dismiss the immigration of the past.
W3C needs to come out with a sarcasm tag or I guess I need to grow up.
Jeff,
It was over the top; that's why I asked if it was writ ironical. I don't think there's anything wrong with your maturity. I've just seen some pretty unbelievable statements in comment sections of blogs. Or maybe I'm just thick.
Joe,
Thanks for posting this very important article.
I'd be curious (as a gentile) to know why the efforts at "continuity" (presumably meaning pro-natalist campaigns or attempts to discourage intermarriage) failed so badly. Any thoughts?
Fred,
Sorry, I was having an internal argument about whether or not to include mock 'sarcasm' tags, and unfortunately the side that held they would be too heavy-handed won.
Yes, of course, I meant the first part as sarcasm, and the closing comment was directed at those (not here, fortunately) who make great protest about the occasional act of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim nature that occurs here in the US, but completely ignore the ongoing seriously oppressive nature of most societies in the ME.
Bill,
The short answer? Jews who don't really believe in Judaism marry Christians who don't really believe in Christianity, and "live happily ever after."
As for the rest of the debate here, we seem to be dancing around one of the important points raised in Steinlight's article - namely, what should be demanded of immigrants to America, and how can American values be transmitted? What does it take for this to succeed in a way that can erase carefully fostered hatreds? Because that is the challenge.
As for Jeff's comment that "Anti-semitism will not thrive in this country because the people that Steinlight seems to abhor, those who promote multiculturalism, won't allow it" - evidence seems to indicate precisely the reverse. Indeed, many of the left's "multiculturalist" (and I use that in quotes because it claims the name, but is really nothing of the sort) bandwagon seem to be anti-Semitism's shock troops and energetic apologists.
Anti-semitism can thrive - and as Steinlight points out, given current trends it almost certainly will thrive. The question is what to do about it - and if Steinlight's alternative is unpalatable, then it is incumbent on us to address that question with the solutions we propose.
Doesn't Europe have fewer immigrants and more anti-semitism?
In any case, if we want to keep Muslims from taking over, we should invite in a few million Hindus.
". . .what should be demanded of immigrants to America, and how can American values be transmitted? What does it take for this to succeed in a way that can erase carefully fostered hatreds? Because that is the challenge. . . "
As an immigrant to the U.S. I believe I can speak to this. I have already outlined above some of what could and should be done. That said, I do not believe that Muslims are the same as other immigrants in wanting to assimilate, because these are from many cultures and the connection is Islam. Thus, it is not only a matter of "cultural assimilation" as is the case for most immigrants, it is also the separation of Islam from the secular. Given that this is not permitted under Islam, I do not believe that Muslims will assimilate well, if at all. Islam teaches at the very least bigotry and at worst misanthropy and violence.
Muslims deliberately separate themselves from mainstream America and retreat into Islam because they have great disdain for our way of life and seek to force their values unto us. They will wait until there is a critical mass and then call for sharia.
" . . .Like others in his mosque, Mr. Musad said, he was drawn to the Muslim community here not for its engagement with the rest of America, but for its distance.
"What attracted me was seeing school girls with veils and burkhas," he said. "It's more authentic here than in New York, more roots. There's village life."
His regret was that Muslims were not even more isolated from the other cultures around them. "Parents feel they need to force their kids to follow their religion, or they're going to lose their kids," Mr. Musad said. . . "
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05PRAY.html
Now why should this Muslim feel that isolated Islamic life within the U.S. is "more authentic"? More authentic than what—American life? Why are these people not aspiring to become Americans? Why do they seek to take away the human rights of women with veils and burqas? Why does America permit this?
Many immigrants in years past, myself included, sought to break out of the ghetto as quickly as possible. And despite suffering considerable abuse from "real" Americans early on, we moved into the mainstream of American life. Those who choose to stay in the ghetto will forever remain foreigners.
If assimilation is to work for Muslims they must be made to assimilate via classes in culture and language as well as American/Western customs and most importantly—laws. Mosques must be watched for radicalism and things such as hijab, that takes away the rights of women, must be banned.
I do not believe this is an issue for Jews alone. Radical Islam is bigoted against every "other"—Jews are singled out, but everyone is deemed a lesser being than a Muslim, according to the Qur'an.
Without the secularization of Islam it will be a long century.
"if we want to keep Muslims from taking over, we should invite in a few million Hindus."
Try telling that to the Bushies. Immigration is down because of 9/11 paranoia. We won't be getting the skilled people we need from the American populace because our people are fat and lazy. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is competing for skilled, educated workers such as scientists while we are letting the unskilled and radicals in by the score.
". . ."For many years we have benefited from minimal competition in the global science and engineering labor market," he said. "But attractive and competitive alternatives are now expanding around the world." . . "
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/science/05RESE.html
This is a slippery slope!