The USA must deal with one of the important questions facing nations. That question involves adding immigrants to our population. As to make any important decision, we have to consider the dependence on new immigrants, the type of immigrant that would provide most to the country and the economy, the number of immigrants needed, and the timing of these acquisition. The immigrant selection process should overshadow party politics, and mere proximity of a large pool of potential immigrants.
The process should be a deliberate and well informed undertaking about potential immigrants. Present location of potential new members of our society shouldn't play a significant role in the choice process because the pool of potential immigrants that would add the most to our society and economy might not be the closest. Close proximity of potential new residents does not necessarily imply such people would make the greatest contribution to the host country. Certainly, the point that a candidate already resides illegally in the host country would argue against the selection of this type of person than a reason to grant resident status and potential citizenship. Past wrong doing will not speak well of potential immigrants.
The present process targets granting amnesty to a group of ten to twenty million foreigners who showed contempt for the laws in coming here. Actually, such disregard for legal entry requirements would seem to permanently disqualify this individual from participation in the immigration process. After all, the failure to enforce law uniformly and impartially eventually encourages other folks to break laws and demand forgiveness. Maintaining order inside a country requires making the laws clear and understandable, and enforcing them impartially.
Admission of an immigrant requires the host country to assume an indeterminate degree of risk. For instance, an immigrant could prove struggling to earn a sufficient amount of money to aid him or herself, which places a burden on taxpayers to subsidize the income of the immigrant, placing an unnecessary obligation on present taxpayers. Also, an individual covered by grants of mass amnesty may suffer from poor health or the effects of old age, which again places a burden on taxpayers. For these reasons and others, it behooves the host country adopt standards of skills, health, age, language skills and education or training it needs of immigrants, rather than dealing with potentially expensive responsibility for immigrants lacking the opportunity to support themselves.
Another matter discovered by scholars of cultures and the compatibility of different cultures identifies the probability of folks from different cultures fitting in with the dominant culture of the host country. Cultural differences account for the nearly fifty wars going on among people of conflicting cultures around the globe at any one time. Research reveals that countries having one large, dominant culture enjoy the most harmony and encounter little disruption from the mix of smaller cultures. A rough guideline resulting from examining the cultural makeup of several countries suggests that a variety of about seventy to eighty percent of the dominant culture plus several smaller groups generally produces a comparatively peaceful national environment. Examining exactly the same country-culture data seems to indicate that conflict appears more often once the country lacks one clearly dominant culture, but includes several roughly equal cultures. This conclusion follows from tests by Geert Hofstede and news reports of violent conflict in a variety of countries.
Mexico along with other Latin American societies obviously offer a major way to obtain immigrants given their close proximity to the United States. China offers another potentially valuable way to obtain immigrants for reasons that may become clear later.
Hofstede conducted an enormous study of culture predicated on IBM locations all over the world in the 1970's, and identified four major components of culture, adding a fifth dimension later. The factors include Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with Long Term Orientation added later.
Countries high on Power Distance accept that power is spread unevenly throughout the country, having an elite at the very top enjoying greater influence on society and greater wealth than individuals progressively reduced terms of power and wealth. Individualism focuses on whether members of a society concentrate on in-group relationships, with kinship playing an important role, or if the focus is on people as unique entities as opposed to group membership. Masculinity addresses the tendency of individuals to act assertively and competitively, or even to adopt more feminine values such as for example nurturing and passivity. Uncertainty Avoidance measures the amount to which society accepts uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk. Long Term Orientation reflects a culture's stress on accomplishment in the here and now instead of the more distant future.
China and Mexico place equally on Power Distance, scoring on the upper end of the scale. This means that they more readily accept the simultaneous presence of a wealthy and powerful minority plus a much poorer and powerless majority. In contrast america scores much lower on this dimension, somewhat below midpoint on the scale. This does not necessarily imply that extremely powerful and wealthy individuals usually do not exist in this country, or there are no powerless and poor. Rather, it indicates that such differences gain less ready acceptance in this society. Indeed, immigration uk , now and before, have focused strongly on reducing these inequalities, with varying success. Obviously, this dimension proves of little value in differentiating the suitability of Mexico and China as a source of immigrants.
China and Mexico both score relatively low on Individualism, with China somewhat lower. Conversely, america shows the best scores in the sample on Individualism, which probably comes as no real surprise. This does not necessarily pose a way to obtain conflict between the United States and the potential immigrant countries. It does imply that the Chinese and Mexicans would probably prove more clannish and distant to outsiders, which would not necessarily portend conflict in the society, but rather that it may prove more challenging for outsiders to gain access to the groups. This could create some difficulty to marketers, social workers, and other outsiders in gaining access to the communities, but does not post much threat of conflict.
China scores about midpoint on Masculinity, while the United States and Mexico scoring medium-high on this dimension, with Mexico slightly higher. This indicates that Mexico and america may be relatively more aggressive competitors, while China could prove more wily and subtle competitors, choosing to "out-fox" competitors or potential partners instead of confront them aggressively.
The only real really surprising result involves Uncertainty Avoidance. China scores the cheapest of the three countries, which fits comfortably with the common perception of the Chinese as obsessive gamblers. AMERICA scores slightly below midpoint, which fits the normal perception of Americans as thoughtfully cautions risk takers. Mexico supplies the real surprise. It scores very much higher with this dimension than the other two countries. This implies that in general Mexicans are very reluctant risk takers, which doesn't seem apparent to an outsider but could be obvious to someone imbedded for the reason that society. Based on the expectations of the United States as the host country, these findings might seem favorable to the Chinese and unfavorably to the Mexicans. If we want new residents to move relatively quickly upward from unskilled labor to self employed entrepreneurs, and for that reason probably greater taxpayers, the Chinese would like a huge advantage on the Mexicans. These findings imply Mexicans may remain at the lower end of industrial society longer than the Chinese, and may consequently utilize more public services compared to the Chinese.
Hofstede reported no findings for Mexico on LONGTERM Orientation, but China scored extremely high on this dimension while the United States scored just the opposite. Americans may tend to "smash through" on projects while the Chinese might seem to let Nature take its course, but whether this indicates an advantage or perhaps a disadvantage would seem to depend on the problem. It could indicate that the Chinese would tend to be deliberate, precise, and patient workers than Americans.
Another major decision variable will be the work ethic. Americans often feel superior for getting the Protestant work ethic, although there are a lot of non-Protestants in the united kingdom. They could therefore favor the Chinese and their Confucian work ethic. A recent article quoted a Mexican leader as saying, "Americans live to work, while we work to call home." Aggressive Americans could take that as a negative. Also, the stereotype of Mexicans carrying out a type of animism-Catholicism non-work ethic could tell against them. True or not, the prevalent perception of Americans taking into consideration the Mexican work ethic is most likely that Mexicans don't possess a work ethic. In my personal experience with Mexicans indicates they are hard and persistent workers at low skilled tasks, but I have no basis to evaluate them on more sophisticated tasks.
Additionally, we need to look at the "dependence on achievement" as originally produced by Henry Murray in 1938 and popularized by David McClelland in "The Achieving Society." The need for achievement targets an individual's desire for significant accomplishment, mastering skills, control, and high standards. It really is revealed by the issue of tasks undertaken. People with low need for achievement may choose super easy tasks, minimizing the chance of failure, or very difficult tasks, in which case a failure wouldn't normally prove embarrassing. People who have a high dependence on achievement often choose moderately difficult tasks, obviously challenging but reachable.
A search of the web revealed that both the United States and China have a higher need for achievement, while showing Mexico as having a minimal need for achievement. Actually, a few of the articles regarding Mexico explained various attempts to instill a higher need for achievement in school students at various grades. A lot of the projects were not advanced enough to predict their success, although funding of these programs indicates that the Mexican government recognizes an increased dependence on achievement represents a very important and desirable asset.
Studies have also focused on differences in intelligence (IQ) between folks of different races. In accordance with Wikipedia, "In the US, intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores show statistical differences, with the common score of the African American population being lower - and that of the Asian American population being higher - than that of the White American population (using the self-identification of those tested)." Other studies indicate that Hispanics are below whites but above blacks. The consensus, from high IQ to low IQ is Ashkenazi Jew, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, Blacks. As for the impact of genetics versus environment on IQ, findings are very mixed but appear to favor genetics because the prime actor on intelligence, although several studies indicate that environment can, to some extent, exert a modifying effect on IQ. One point of interest is that the University of California at Berkley, a very highly ranked university nationally, reports that 50% of its student body is Asian, primarily Chinese. Taken together, these findings appears to be to favor Chinese as immigration candidates.
What this signifies regarding selection of people as potential immigrants depends on national goals. If the goal is to bring in individuals who are likely to serve a minimal time in the lower ranks of the work force and move up to becoming self-employed tradesmen, artisans, or professionals, possibly increasing employment for others, the Chinese clearly offer the better choice. Conversely, if the United States wishes to bring in a predominantly permanent low paid laborer class, perhaps it should reconsider. The Hispanics, especially Mexicans, are extremely nationalistic. Even third generation Mexican Americans wildly cheer Mexican teams at international sporting events.
A problem with Mexican immigrants is that they do not tend over time to identify with america. There is a dominant belief among Mexicans that america stole the territory comprising the western states from Mexico. Nothing could be further from the reality. Mexican General Santa Anna invaded USA territory in 1846. In the resulting war, one portion of USA troops drove south through central Mexico while another performed an amphibious landing near Mexico City, which both forces soon occupied. Finally realizing that it could not govern the huge territory it had conquered, the U.S. offered the Mexican government sixty million dollars for portions of current Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, southern California, parts of Nevada, and Colorado. When the President of Mexico refused the offer, the U.S. offered a lesser official thirty million dollars for exactly the same property, that was accepted. Minor additions were added later.
Rejecting reality, Mexican nationalist political movements such as La Raza constantly harangue Mexicans in america to reclaim the western states through overwhelming immigration, legally or illegally. They explain how illegal immigrants can manage to vote inside our elections, bus illegal immigrants from polling station to polling station, and constantly stress that the western USA must become part of Mexico. Pledges of allegiance to the United States are often not made in good faith by "Reconquistas."
Finding the right Immigrants, Not the Handiest
·
8 min read
