« Governor Clinton | Main | Wednesday Zimbabwe Blogging » America Hearts Diversity02 Apr 2008 02:13 pm
Amidst last year's substantive panic over immigration was a large political panic, and it continues to be the case that anti-immigrant obsessives insist that the public at large shares their views. And yet, as this and other charts from John Sides shows, the United States remains an outlier among developed countries in lacking strong commitments to the goal of creating a culturally or religiously homogenous country. Comments (41)
To be fair, I think the political argument is more that people who don't think immigrants are a problem tend not to care much about immigration, while people who see immigration as a problem are vehement. So pander to the fanatics and the rest of the people who don't care much about immigration won't care about that either. 
Where's Canada?
It appears that you don't understand what 'outlier' means. Hint: it doesn't mean 'to one side of a group.' sk
This would seem to be a fairly direct artifact of our multinational heritage. My impression of the anti-immigration (cough)racist(cough) types is that they want to draw a line around what KIND of folks are Murcans. Pretty much their own private psychodrama, in other words.
What the heck is up with Norway valuing religious conformity over social? Thought they weren't that religious? A reasonable casual use of outlier, if not statistically grounded which it wouldn't be anyway because there are 2 variables. Being lowest on both would drive it more to an outlier. Granted, Greece is more outlier-y, being highest in both and by larger margins.
At the other extreme, the results for Greece make me think that the crude stereotype of the Greek father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding wasn't that crude afterall. What's with the Greeks? Is it the influence of Eastern Orthodox Catholicism? I wonder where Russia would fit on this. Even more upper right than Greece? What of China? Lower Right?
What's with the Greeks? Their country, unlike the others listed, is located in the Balkans. To put it more graciously, it was a nation-state founded relatively recently for the specific purpose of defending their own ethno-religious identity, and their position is a lot less secure, so they're going to be more anxious.
Bragan: You think China doesn't care about religion? Ask the underground Roman Catholic churches.
I second Joe's sentiment: I would be very curious to compare the poll results of US and Canada on this question.
Anthony, Sure the Chinese government clearly keeps a close tab on religions, but assuming this is a survey done of ordinary people, and considering that China officially allows several different religions now after decades of banning religion I would think that there isn't a dominant mindset regarding religion in China. I would expect a relatively high tolderance among the Chinese people about religion in general, though if you were to poll them about specific religions such as the Falun Gong or the non-state sanctioned Christian denominations, you might get a stronger negative response. However, for social customs and traditions, I would expect a very strong conformist response.
Look at Ireland's commitment to "share religion" - very low. Of course, Northern Ireland's answers weren't put in Ireland's results.
What's with the Greeks? Is it the influence of Eastern Orthodox Catholicism? As another commenter pointed out, Greece is like the rest of the Balkans. Their extreme nationalism and ethnic clannishness is a result of having spent 400 years under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire. Also, some believe a result of having missed the influences of the Renaissance and Enlightenment that passed them by while under control of the Turks.
You forgot Poland.
Bragan wrote: What's with the Greeks? Is it the influence of Eastern Orthodox Catholicism?
There's Roman Catholicism, which follows the Latin Rite, and there's the much less common Eastern or Byzantine Catholicism, which follows the Eastern or Byzantine Rite. Both Roman and Eastern Catholicism are in communion with the pope. Then's there are the various Eastern Orthodox churches, including the Greek Orthodox Church, which follow their own rites and which are not in communion with the pope. But "Eastern Orthodox Catholicism" is a contradiction in terms.
Matt: All this chart shows is that the reason for anti-immigrant feeling in the U.S. is not primarily cultural or religious. Indeed most (not all, but most) anti-immigrant rhetoric in the U.S. centered around two economic themes: 1) Immigrants depress wages for the native born It is fashionable among liberals to assume that these two arguments are held in bad faith and that the only thing anti-immigration Americans really care about is hating on the Brown People. But perhaps this chart suggests that when those opposed to immigration say they are opposed to immigration because of economics reasons that they actually, you know, mean it.
And on the flipside of the Greek experience, I wasn't surprised to see Portugal (responsible for 3/4 of my heritage) out there on the homogenous end as well. It's been a relatively stable geographic/political/cultural entity for the better part of a thousand years and my understanding is that until the independence of the colonies in Angola and Mozambique it was an incredibly homogenous society; that kind of lengthy homogeneity breeds conservatism, especially when it's suddenly challenged. The American experience has been relatively unique to this point in time.
SD wins the thread.
This really does go right to the core conception of America as a model Enlightenment Republic, and I am glad to see my fellow Americans still largely share that conception.
While "Eastern Orthodox Catholicism" is awkward and confusing, it's not, technically wrong. A more proper colloquial term for the religion is "Eastern Orthodoxy," but the only reason one would not describe the church as the "Orthodox Catholic Church" is to reduce confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. In the days before registered incorporation and ficitious names, no one group was able to sue for a monopoly on religious labels. In 1054, the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople didn't enter into arbitration to agree who retained the rights to use the name "Catholic" vs. "Orthodox." Cripes, I'm such a pedant.
Amidst last year's substantive panic over immigration was a large political panic, and it continues to be the case that anti-immigrant obsessives insist that the public at large shares their views. And yet, as this and other charts from John Sides shows, the United States remains an outlier among developed countries in lacking strong commitments to the goal of creating a culturally or religiously homogenous country. ************************************************* I'm not surprised that as a nation of immigrants the results of this study show Americans have a tolerance for diversity in customs and religions. What does surprise me is Matt making the illogical leap to the conclusion that tolerance for diversity = support for unrestricted illegal immigration. Look at some other numbers http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 14-17, 2008. N=1,393 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Do you think the United States is or is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country?" it continues to be the case that anti-immigrant obsessives insist that the public at large shares their views. If you look at other numbers in the poll compendium I linked to, you'll also see that most Americans also recognize that immigrants (legal and illegal) also make positive contributions to the country. It appears that Matt and others on the Left can't understand that most Americans really have the "nuanced" view that though immigration is good for the country, they'd really like for us to control our borders and have immigration be a controlled orderly process. I would also submit that the polls I've linked to and the studies Matt posted on taken together show that one of the current default positions of the Left - opponents of illegal immigration are irrational, obsessive racists - is a lie. If the majority of citizens oppose illegal immigration yet at the same time support religious and cultural diversity it seems illogical that their motivation is racist.
And on the flipside of the Greek experience, I wasn't surprised to see Portugal (responsible for 3/4 of my heritage) out there on the homogenous end as well. It's been a relatively stable geographic/political/cultural entity for the better part of a thousand years and my understanding is that until the independence of the colonies in Angola and Mozambique it was an incredibly homogenous society; that kind of lengthy homogeneity breeds conservatism, especially when it's suddenly challenged. Sure, it's been homogenous, if one discounts immigrants from Italy, those from the greater Mediterranean Jewish diaspora, and the substantial numbers of African slave imported into the country between the fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries.
sd & Tyro, As an atheist, albeit one baptized as a Catholic (of the Roman variety), I appreciate the corrections. I had thought the Eastern Orthodox were A) rooted in Byzantium and B) were considered Catholics, though not Roman Catholics. I certainly did not realize that there are both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. To continue my lesson, do the Greek Orthodox share essentially the same dogma and supreme cleric as the Russian Orthodox. Some long bearded fellow who resides in Istanbul? And both the Greek and Russian varieties are considered Eastern Orthordox?
Do you trust anything MattY says about immigration? If so, please do a find for TLB on this previous thread. I hope to change your mind: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_false_promise_of_restricti.php There are probably thousands of important things about this issue MattY doesn't know, but for just one example, consider this. At least she was enough of a blabbermouth to let us know what this is really all about.
sd, Low-wage native born people also depress the wages of other low-wage native born people. That's called competition, and the law of demand. Why should it be different for immigrants? As to your second point, many native-born citizens use more in public services than they pay in taxes. Should they be kicked out of the country too?
The right wing, anti-immigration fanatics have got thier base whipped up into a non-logical frenzy on immigration. My sister, an upper-middle class Republican, (and ex-Fred Thompson supporter) told me that illegal immigration was the most important political issue to her this election. I asked her why and she told me that the illegal immigrants, and immigrants in general, are "corrupting our values." I then asked what values - values like hard work, wanting your kid to do well in school, or making a better life for yourself? She couldn't respond and then told me that they were corrupting our language and that we all would have to speak Spanish to accommodate them. She related a story of how she hired a contractor to lay tile in her house and how frustrated she was that she couldn't communicate to the workers because they all spoke Spanish. I then told her she should've hired another contractor, with an all American team, and she said he was too expensive. Go figure! This episode showed me that the right-wingers are now using the "they don't have our values" thing against immigrants. Yet none of them can articulate what that means exactly and how it's hurting them. But it sure doesn't hurt their pocketbooks!
Bragan: A few points per your questions: 1) The Eastern Orthodox churches share a common ancestry and doctrine but are not administratively linked in a formal way. There are Patriarchs - bishops in the historic urban centers of Orthodoxy that hold a high level of stature among Orthodox believers (for example, the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Antioch) but no equivalent to the western pope who is in administrative control of the Catholic church. The Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox share almost identical dogma but no central administrative structure. 2) The "Eastern Orthodox Catholic" thing is really a matter of proper English usage. The Eastern Orthodox would be considered small-c "catholic" but not big-C "Catholic." The word "catholic" is an adjective that describes a certain universalism in outlook, whereas in common usage "Catholic" with a big "C" implies being part of the church in communion with the pope in Rome. In the same way small-o "orthodox" is an adjective that means in keeping with the historical mainstream doctrine of Christianity whereas in common usage big-O "Orthodox" implies a specific church body in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The church in Rome is thus Catholic and orthodox while the church in Greece is catholic and Orthodox. Confusing, I know. The Lutheran and Anglican churches would generally be considered catholic and orthodox. But nobody is Catholic and Orthodox, in proper English usage. 3) The Eastern Catholic branch of the Catholic church is quite small. The vast majority of Catholics worldwide are of the Roman (Latin rite)variety. The liturgy of the Eastern Catholics is (as I understand it) very similar to the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox churches, but there are doctrinal differences between the two, largely owing to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox do not acknowledge the administrative or doctrinal supremacy of the pope. Similarly the Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics have identical doctrines but very different liturgies.
too may steves: First of all, I'm not anti-immigrant. I think immigration is largely a good thing, even the currently illeagal variety that comes mostly from Mexico. But just because I'm generally pro-immigration doesn't mean I'm willing to categorically assert that everyone who is anti-immigration is a bigot. I think that the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs. But there are both benefits and costs, as any reasonable person can see. So given that its impossible to precisely quantify the benefits or costs, I'm simply not going to be in the business of saying that people who think the costs outweigh the benefits are evil. Wrong yes, but not evil. Some of them may be. Some anti-immigration folks are bigots. If somebody tells me they are anti-immigrant because they hate Mexicans I will assume they are a bigot. But if somebody tells me they are anti-immigrant because illeagals depress the wages of native born Americans - mostly poor blacks in California, Texas and the other border states - I'm not going to assume they are a bigot.
I agree with sd and Campesino that Matt is making a pretty egregious mistake here by conflating "support for immigration" with "support for diversity." I'm proud of the racial, linguistic, and religious diversity in the US. If I could make us more diverse without increasing the overall population, I'd happily check that box. But I think we've quite simply got enough people. SDs arguments about wages are part of the equation, but the really compelling argument is a quality-of-life argument. We're a big country, but there are limits on water resources (especially in the Southwest), and across the country there are a limited number of attractive places to expand human settlement without significantly degrading the environment (which is part of the quality-of-life equation for people as well). The bottom line is that I suspect added population and quality of life have begun to correlate inversely. And though this may seem like a geeky, weird, radical-green argument, I think it might be beginning to resonate more broadly than politicians in either party have grasped, because real estate bubbles, smog, water shortages, and so forth are beginning to make the implications of overpopulation concrete. I'm a hard-core Democrat, but this is one issue where I think the left has its head stuck deeply in the sand (to put it as politely as possible).
Don't get me wrong. There's lots of room in Wyoming. But the places in Wyoming *where people most want to live* comprise a much smaller space. (Places, for instance, near mountains and water.) And once you're looking at that smaller space, there's a limit to the number of people you can pack into it without risking degradation of the ecological and aesthetic resources that attracted people in the first place. At some point, the spirit of Jeremy Bentham is going to wake up and tell you that adding more people to the system is no longer a smart way to increase the mean quality of life.
Right, except that history has proven Bentham wrong on that point. There have always been people saying, "you know what the perfect amount of people is? The amount we have now," or "the amount we had just a little while ago." And yet, population growth continues, and we continue to be better off.
Excuse me, but Matt is all mixed up on cause and effect here. The chart tells us nothing about creating cultural and religious homogeneity, it simply tells us where countries stand on those scales, and, as you might expect, countries that have had less immigration are more homogeneous.
Looking at the original paper, it appears that Greece is by far the most xenophobic country of the sample, sitting several standard deviations away from mean in most categories of attitudes towards immigrants and their effects.
Where Canada, Australia and New Zealand? I be interesting to compare the four anglophone settler nations.
I believe I remember reading some poll a while ago that purported to show that Greeks had the highest self-reported _happiness_ of any people in the world, notwithstanding their lower GDP than the United States or Western Europe. It would seem that perhaps a reasonable degree of religious belief an a homogenous cultural identity is more improtant to national happiness and well being than being a wealthy and comfortable rootless cosmopolite. As for why the Greeks are highly religious and nationalistic, more power to them. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that they are a small country which has traditionally been buffeted around in struggles between more powerful neighbors. Their religion was the thing that kept them separate from their hated Turkish overlords. In 1975, they almost went to war with the American-backed Turkish regime over Cyprus.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in this context, an 'outlier' would be a point that is far away from the regression line. Since in this case Greece appears to lie _on_ the regression line it isn't an outlier. Norway might be, but it's a low influence outlier--doesn't appreciably affect the slope of the line.
Perhaps this explains why the 'Obama is a Muslim' rumour is doing less harm than it would in Europe. Australia would be intermediate, there is a tradition of high immigration but there is a stronger traditional sense of national identity linked to white racial British traditions. The Australian case under the recently defeated conservative govt might provide some evidence for Campesino's position.
On a random note, Greece is often considered the most anti-American country in the EU, in part because we supported a fascist regime there and that Greece is relatively poor than its fellow EU members that had more constructive relationships with the US. "I'm a hard-core Democrat, but this is one issue where I think the left has its head stuck deeply in the sand (to put it as politely as possible). Posted by Ted | April 2, 2008 5:39 PM" How does creating a black market in people, which immigration restrictions create, help with the problems you cite? Outside of countries where no one wants to move to, like North Korea, Zimbabwe and Burma, restricting immigration doesn't magically lead to massive, sustained drops in immigration (there are sometimes temporary drops before the the market corrects itself). In China, where linguistic and social barriers to movement exist, the government mandates that people have to register their household with the government, which makes it hard to change jobs at times and nearly impossible to legally move from the country to the city. However, this system has just led to tens of millions of people becoming part of a "floating population" that are unregistered and move in underground networks that elude the government. The government then wastes resources trying to combat these illegal networks and fears that they could become a revolutionary force. If you want to better control immigration, you have to approach in a way that opens up legal ways to immigration that deters from illegality. In addition, we also have to stop subsidizing our agricultural products in a way that allows Mexican farmers to compete with our own to reduce the economic need to come to the US. Also, although poor African-Americans are among the most likely economically hurt by illegal immigration, polls show African-Americans are more tolerant and understanding of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, than white people in general, which does suggest there is a stronger racial component to the anti-immigration fervor than we're willing to admit. After all, what does trying to make English the official, national language of the US and prohibiting illegal immigrants from holding drivers licenses (thus better ensuring they know and follow traffic laws) have to do with depressed wages? If these economic issues were the real problem, then the anti-immigration activists would go about their activism in a much different manner.
Those reasons by sd are good, but need one modification and a few additions: The modification is to distinguish between people who apply to come into the US as legal immigrants and demonstrate they have valuable needed job skills, no crime history, and will not be a burden DO NOT become a burden, do not depress wages, and grow the GNP. Other reasons: 1. Mass immigration and high breeding rates of immigrants will grow US population to 420 million by 2050, by US Census figures. If that is allowed, it will eat up all existing American's efforts at energy conservation and any small gain we accomplish on renewables and still have 60-80 million to be provided for by current energy sources - leaving America even more dependent on foreign energy sources, farther than ever from Kyoto goals. (Back in 1950, with 160 million people, America was the world's largest oil exporter. Population growth, more than individual guzzlers, ate up our surplus and turned us into importers by 1967.) 2. We are already seeing resource limits (water) in the Southwest. Infrastructure limits (gridlock in Southern California, Chicago, Miami Dade, Atlanta, and along the I-95 corridor as roads designed for 250 million people can't cope with local loading where the millions of illegals, illegal spawn settle. We have also seen a significant loss in America's most productive, cash-generating two, three-crop per annum arable lands in California, Arizona, SoTexas, Florida as sprawl of too many people spreads out and covers farmland. 3. Studies now show a loss of trust, lack of civic involvement, and higher stress in any community where "diversity" grows. 4. Excessive immigration discourages government and business from training Americans for 21st Century jobs. At the lower socioeconomic end for "step-up the job rung" jobs like underclass blacks moving into trades and medium skilled jobs. At the higher end, it discourages investing in Americans from going into professions like science, engineering, computer skills, nursing, med technician - where firms, government, hospitals, universities are free to hire the foreigner as a cheaper "plug-in". 5. We must have an assimilation period. History shows that when two ethnic groups or more coexist, with the smaller group of sufficient size exist to resist assimilation into the majority, the general outcome is either enhanced tribalism (For us blacks, La Raza, whites - everything. For others, Nothing!) or ETA/Tamil Tiger style terror insurgency, Balkanization and partition, the unbelievable slaughter of civil war between different cultures in one country unable to reconcile, or maybe at worst - how the Sudetanland or ethnic slaughter of the Greeks and Armenians played out. It took America one bloody civil war to enforce a common culture and vision for America. The more unchecked mass immigration we have, with emphasis on them keeping the "diversity" of their ethnic ways and animosities - the greater the risk America is for home-grown Muslim or some other group's terror a la the Quebec separatist movement, dual loyalty problems, partition, or civil war and even the necessary cleansing needed to restore peace and harmony to a land. **************** But...There is every reason to continue legal immigration of the people America needs. Each person legally vetted and accepted has far higher odds of being well-educated, low-or no crime, higher odds of assimilating, and likely to be a net contributor to our society rather than a drain.
What amuses me about immigration as a political issue is that, as the CNN poll posted above, it could easily be a winner for the Republicans, but instead it has proved disastrous for them. While there is strong and broad support for moving against illegal immigration, Republicans have proven incapable of engaging this issue without demonstrating an ugly underbelly of racial animosity that sends moderates running for the hills and that has ensured that a generation of Hispanics will abhor the Republican party, leaving the Republicans demographically fucked in a pretty serious way. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Whoops!
Norway has had several recent culture clashes between secular Norwegians and unassimilated Norwegian Muslims. Secular Norwegians have criticized unassimilated Muslims for failure to adopt the Norwegian understanding of the role of women in society -- in particular, Norwegians believe that unassimilated Muslims often have a retrograde "she was asking for it" view of sexual assault, based upon the woman's mode of dress. Muslims, for their part, have complained about public school dress codes that prevent the wearing of the hijab, and foster care rules that allow gay couples to act as foster parents for Muslim children. (For their part, Norway's observant Christians have taken to republishing and distributing the Danish Mohammed cartoons in order to make things worse, which got the Norwegian embassy in Syria burned down by an angry mob. But the major division is between the secular and the religious.) FWIW, Norwegian Muslims are very often divided by ethnicity. Turkish and Iranian Muslims, who have had a presence in Norway for generations, tend to assimilate quickly and fairly well (certainly better than their kinfolk in Germany, for example). Controversies usually involve Pakistani, Somali, or Iraqi Muslims, who are more insular and more likely to be recent arrivals.
Most Americans have no problem with immigration. It's the illegal part that is the problem. How many whacks to the head does it take for liberals to understand this distinction?
Comments closed April 16, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yeah. I've been waiting for media coverage of immigration to move away from the "Let's you and him fight" narrative. In vain, needless to say.
Posted by MattF | April 2, 2008 2:28 PM