Battling Immigration Straw Men
It’s almost impossible to have an honest public debate about any serious topic nowadays. Privately, maybe. But publicly, straw men are the real enemy. And, that’s about all you ever hear. For instance, suggest that immigration needs to be cut back, and you’re a racist. Suggest that Muslims migrating from countries that are hot-beds of jihad, and you’re a racist. Suggest that welfare for recent emigres is a bad idea, and you’re a racist. Say anything but “OK, I give”—and you are a RACIST! This is where straw men come into play. And here’s how they work.
Straw man argument no. 1 - “America is a country of immigrants. Therefore, to be anti-immigrant, is to be anti-America.”
Take a cursory look at history and genetics and it becomes clear that everyone, no matter where they live, today, came from somewhere else. At least, their ancestors did. That’s true of Native Americans, as well. Nearly one third of which are “Eurasian.” Meaning, their point of origin was Europe and the Middle East. It was once believed that all Native Americans crossed a land-bridge from East Asia some 16,000 years ago. Genetic studies on the 24,000 year old arm bone of a Siberian child, among other sources, suggests that at least one third of Native Americans were, in fact, of European and Middle Eastern origin. Native Americans are not closely related to modern people living in the Far East, either, such as the Japanese, Chinese or Koreans as was once believed.
So, who belongs where? The simple answer is that humans, like animals, have always migrated in search of a better life, whether it’s a search for food or a better climate, it doesn’t matter. Likewise, both animals and humans have always competed for limited resources and those cultures or animals best adapted for survival to a particular environment are the ones that survive and thrive. This is Darwin 101. Remarkably, many people who quote Darwin to justify one idea, disregard him completely, when it suits their purpose. This is not a justification for social Darwinism. It is simply an acknowledgement of historical fact. In reality, there are no indigenous people. There are simply people. And, there is no statute of limitations on who belongs where that is anything other than arbitrary. From a political standpoint, this is troubling. At least, it is for those who see race as a way of getting a hand-up on their fellow man. Likewise it benefits the politicians who act as self-appointed referees, regarding the endless debates about who owes what to whom? Stoke the fires of resentment and point the finger at the bad guys, even if these apparent bad guys never uttered a racist word, their ancestors almost certainly did. And that makes them a convenient stand-in when all else fails.
In the end, immigration is a financial issue, first and foremost. It is also a cultural issue, which has economic ramifications, all of which are complicated by cultural differences that are sometimes marginal, but can also be vast. Simply look at a century of global conflicts, including two world wars, and multiple mass genocides, and that should be obvious. Any other approach to the very serious issue of immigration, then, is childish. But that’s to be expected from straw men, no matter their point of origin.
Mark Magula
Straw man argument no. 1 - “America is a country of immigrants. Therefore, to be anti-immigrant, is to be anti-America.”
Take a cursory look at history and genetics and it becomes clear that everyone, no matter where they live, today, came from somewhere else. At least, their ancestors did. That’s true of Native Americans, as well. Nearly one third of which are “Eurasian.” Meaning, their point of origin was Europe and the Middle East. It was once believed that all Native Americans crossed a land-bridge from East Asia some 16,000 years ago. Genetic studies on the 24,000 year old arm bone of a Siberian child, among other sources, suggests that at least one third of Native Americans were, in fact, of European and Middle Eastern origin. Native Americans are not closely related to modern people living in the Far East, either, such as the Japanese, Chinese or Koreans as was once believed.
So, who belongs where? The simple answer is that humans, like animals, have always migrated in search of a better life, whether it’s a search for food or a better climate, it doesn’t matter. Likewise, both animals and humans have always competed for limited resources and those cultures or animals best adapted for survival to a particular environment are the ones that survive and thrive. This is Darwin 101. Remarkably, many people who quote Darwin to justify one idea, disregard him completely, when it suits their purpose. This is not a justification for social Darwinism. It is simply an acknowledgement of historical fact. In reality, there are no indigenous people. There are simply people. And, there is no statute of limitations on who belongs where that is anything other than arbitrary. From a political standpoint, this is troubling. At least, it is for those who see race as a way of getting a hand-up on their fellow man. Likewise it benefits the politicians who act as self-appointed referees, regarding the endless debates about who owes what to whom? Stoke the fires of resentment and point the finger at the bad guys, even if these apparent bad guys never uttered a racist word, their ancestors almost certainly did. And that makes them a convenient stand-in when all else fails.
In the end, immigration is a financial issue, first and foremost. It is also a cultural issue, which has economic ramifications, all of which are complicated by cultural differences that are sometimes marginal, but can also be vast. Simply look at a century of global conflicts, including two world wars, and multiple mass genocides, and that should be obvious. Any other approach to the very serious issue of immigration, then, is childish. But that’s to be expected from straw men, no matter their point of origin.
Mark Magula