|
The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal | 
 enlarge | Author: Mark Krikorian
Publisher: Sentinel HC
Category: Book
List Price: $25.95
Buy New: $6.19
You Save: $19.76 (76%)
New (45) Used (22) from $2.95
Avg. Customer Rating:  14 reviews
Sales Rank: 204048
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 304
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.4
ISBN: 1595230351
Dewey Decimal Number: 325.73
EAN: 9781595230355
ASIN: 1595230351
Publication Date: July 3, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: SATISFACTION GUARANTEED! NEW Book! May have remainder mark. Most orders ship within 1 BUSINESS DAY with ORDER CONFIRMATION.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
New research reveals why America can no longer afford mass immigration
Mark Krikorian has studied the trends and concluded that America must permanently reduce immigration both legal and illegalor face enormous problems in the near future.
His argument is based on facts, not fear. Wherever they come from, todays immigrants are actually very similar to those who arrived a century ago. But they are coming to a very different Americaone where changes in the economy, society, and government create different incentives for newcomers.
Before the upheavals of the 1960s, the U.S. expected its immigrantsfrom Italy to Indiato earn a living, learn English, and become patriotic Americans. But the rise of identity politics, political correctness, and Great Society programs means we no longer make these demands. In short, the problem isnt them, its us. Even positive developments such as technological progress hinder the assimilation of immigrants. Its easy now for newcomers to live transnational lives.
Immigration will be in the headlines through Election Day and beyond, and this controversial book will help drive the debate.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 9 more reviews...
 A review I wrote for a class November 21, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
So this is really long, but it is my interpretation of his work. It was an assignment for my comparative immigration class.
Mark Krikorian's The New Case Against Immigration synthesizes the contemporary immigration situation in the United States by looking at the historical progression of immigrant movement and government policy. His arguments are founded on two fundamental points which both assert that our present situation is different from the past. First, modern communication enhances transnationalism which deteriorates the ties that an individual can have with their country of origin by allowing one to maintain their roots while retaining the ability to settle abroad, diminishing the idea of American nationalism from citizens and non-citizens alike. Second, the origins of contemporary immigrants, primarily from Mexico and Latin America, limit diversity and prevent assimilation. Massive quantities of Hispanic immigrants are able to retain cultural ties by manufacturing Spanish-speaking enclaves, a concept foreign on such a massive scale until up until the last few decades. Krikorian's fundamental argument is immigration is an affront to American sovereignty, harming the economic, social, and practical lives of citizens.
Mexican jingoism stimulated by a cultural desire to "reconquista" of American territory ceded during the Mexican-American war has resulted in penetration of immigrants that have essentially taken over major immigrant hubs by retaining the Spanish language and securing key positions in government, "[marginalizing them] from the American mainstream" (Krikorian 55). Furthermore, Mexico City directly affects policy through lobbying and consulates, direct violations of international norms which inhibit legislative policy making and executive action. A non-cooperative Mexico also directly affects the ability for federal and state governments to secure borders and maintain national security. Inability to deport potential terrorists who came through Mexico leaves the United States openly vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Lack of support at the federal level overloads border enforcement agencies which inhibit securitization, a problem that is as much political as it is international. Cutting immigration is essential to border enforcement as well as tracking legal immigrants by relieving an overburdened system.
Krikorian's argument takes an economic perspective, claiming that immigrants "[reduce] the bargaining power of workers] which directly leads to lower wages and prohibits mechanization progression due to a seemingly unlimited supply of low skilled labor. As a result, the economic inequality gap widens, driving out middle-class America. Krikorian then argues that immigrant economic input into the system is less than the amount received in public welfare programs. Drains in health care, education, and criminal justice directly prevent American access to programs whose benefits they are intended for. As a result, American tax payers directly fund illegal immigrants' ability to live comfortably off American institutions. Next, increases in population will not be from domestic reproduction, rather directly from immigration. Smaller American families and significantly increasing numbers of immigrants cramp urban immigration hubs, increasing suburban sprawl. With it, increases in pollution, congestion on highways, and space needed for individuals to live directly decreases quality of life by harming the environment, increasing commute types, and preventing flexibility of living accommodations. Krikorian proposes a remedy; initially drop immigration levels to zero, reform enforcement of illegal immigrants currently within borders, and enact a general policy of attrition that enforces already existing immigration laws.
On the whole, I find Krikorian's claims personally compelling, though often lacking evidence. First, there are entire sections of the book that rely entirely on anecdotal evidence which leaves argumentation subjective and open to the reader's interpretation. For instance, in the third chapter on immigrations affront to national sovereignty, he relies heavily on isolated quotes that often lack context. While criticizing lobbying, he frequently employs ellipses while quoting individuals; such as, "form a common front that represents...the interests of the Hispanic community" (Krikorian 68).With no context for the reader, the ellipses can represent a leap in thought or even spanning an entire page. Furthermore, isolating errant quotations only portrays a slice of the picture. There are nationalists, racists, and ignorants within American society and often within the bureaucratic structure. So if one wanted to negatively portray American politicians or the American mindset in general, it would be just as easy to do so as Krikorian criticizes Mexicans for the same thing. Even if the quotes he presents are accurate of a Mexican consensus within the population and the bureaucratic structure, he expects the reader to agree with the intuitive conclusion he draws. Since he doesn't present statistics on both sides, albeit misrepresentative to a point in and of themselves, he provides no surveys of Mexican consulates or Mexican-Americans living in American society, legal or illegal, resulting in a lack of objectivity. Furthermore, reaching the conclusion that Mexican relations within the United States diminish American sovereignty is rather absurd given the lack of critical analysis on the nature of international relations. His arguments lack the robustness of evidence that is definitely available. One reason for this may be that his book's audience is for the general public instead of academia. As a result, it lacks the rigor of truly engaging the subject past ad hominem attacks against a group or individuals within the group.
On the issue of evidence, Krikorian ought to do more research (or at least present detailed research). The sixth chapter, immigrations affects on the population, contains psychological claims without psychological warrants. In fact, in the eleven pages that discuss the psychology of a population, he never once mentions the word in any form. There are two clear examples of claiming a lack of quality of life will harm one's emotional or spiritual health. The first is the argument that immigration increases population significantly, especially in urban areas, which increases suburban areas, creating for longer commutes. He uses the Census Bureau to assert that individuals have "'extreme commutes', lasting ninety minutes or more one way" (Krikorian 205) and that commuting during peak traffic hours has increased substantially. He never informs the reader why they ought to care, but expects them to draw the conclusion that commuting is a bad thing (For instance, driving and listening to music is an enjoyable activity for me, regardless of traffic levels). Evidence is available that demonstrates the immense psychological stress produced by increased traffic, one of them being a book he cites extensively in the first chapter, Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone which presents a sociological perspective. Even if he had used Putnam's book as evidence, it still doesn't take to the root of human psyche like Jonathon Haidt's Happiness Hypothesis which links workers with long commutes as "[arriving] at work with higher levels of stress hormones" .Second, the evidence with regards to urban sprawl destroying 600 million trees is insufficient to upholding the claim that quality of life is diminished by immigration. The only support he uses is from the Society of American Foresters whose approach takes a spiritual one, advocating preservation of nature for superficial reasons. This isn't the argument that ought to be made. Looking at the issue pragmatically, a decrease in trees increases carbon dioxide (a problem he also attributes to immigration). Paving trees with cities also creates localized global cooling because the albedo point (the amount that a surface; reflects sunlight, glaciers reflect the most light and trees reflect the least) of pavement is significantly higher than forests, disrupting weather patterns, often resulting in less rainfall due to weakened storm strength. This damages niche ecosystems and can inhibit agricultural production on a large scale . Much more compelling than trees making the reader feel good. Krikorian, being a demographer, ought not to rely so heavily on statistics, because every claim that is made can be answered with "who cares" or "I simply don't care about x" which would be a sufficient take out of his arguments due to a lack of persuasion.
Though my responses up until this point has been nitpicky, but the meat of his book, the chapter addressing immigrant drains on government spending, still falls short of being argumentatively compelling. The problem lies in the first two pages which makes a blatant logical fallacy. He assumes that Americans have fundamentally changed, embracing big government. It isn't that the American population over generations has actively pursued growth of government, as indicated by the general trend for political strength to waver between the two major parties, but growth of government represents a natural progression of a mature society. Obviously, significantly increased spending in transportation, education, and healthcare will take place as society wishes to be more mobile, attend higher education, and take advantage of innovative medical technology. So even if the spending adjusted for inflation is substantially higher than a century ago, it is because a modern society requires a modern infrastructure to maximize modern technological potential. His very statistic that dropout rates have decreased significantly over the last century proves that, intuitively and obviously, there will be more students in school, resulting in more gross expenditure, regardless of immigration levels. There simply wasn't a need for big government in 1910, but as time changes necessities change as well. And even if all of Krikorians arguments are true, he provides no recursive avenue, admitting that removing government spending benefits to immigrants would be as morally reprehensible to the American public as dumping a baby in a dumpster. His remedies at the end of the book essentially fail to answer the moral implications of his arguments, asserting, still without evidence, the supremacy of American citizenship, essentially creating a second class of inferior individuals further isolated in society.
As a casual reader, I agree with every argument that Krikorian makes, as they mesh with my personal opinion on the subject so I require little convincing. As a critical reader, however, there are major evidentiary flaws in his argumentation that create for well formed ideas that are supported by nothing more than dodgy quotations and questionable statistical analysis. A casual or critical reader of Krikorian's The New Case Against Immigration who fundamentally disagrees with his assertions will find no middle ground because of the biased presentation of ideas and evidence. And if immigration is as contentious of an issue as he asserts, then it would easily be assumed, by his own argumentation, that almost everyone has fully formed opinions on the topic. Essentially, I could only assume, he isolates individuals who disagree on a casual level by offending them and isolates on a critical level due to his lack of deep, compelling argumentation. To end with, his lack of psychological, philosophical, moral, and scientific insight into a very complex issue makes for an awfully shallow book.
 The most complete analysis of the current state of our union September 1, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Even though this book's premise is about managing immigration levels for the benefit of the country as a whole and not for the immigrants or the businesses, it touches on the major critical issues of the day - economy, quality of life, environment, global warming, security, societal harmony, crime - in a holistic manner that does not ignore the 'elephant in the room' - the coming overpopulation in the USA.
Unfortunately though this book will ignored in favor of the Michael Moore's of the world - until a hundred years from now when it will become a classic.
The New Case Against IMMIGRATION Both Legal and Illegal August 10, 2008
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
I am interested in the immigration issue and its effect on the future of the United States. I found the book to be very insightful. By using bits of information from a few hundred well researched sources, I found it to be a compelling work that points out the problem of immigration. In the end, it summarizes the reasons immigration must be controlled. It provides historical information on past immigration, and why it worked, and then clearly explains why the numbers cannot be as high as in the past.
This is an issue about 75% of Americans want controlled, and some of the reasons why our government is reluctant to do the right thing to accomodate the wishes of the CITIZENS it is elected to represent.
The Minuteman Project Strongly Recommends This Book August 8, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
There have been many books written about immigration issues, but
"The New Case Against Immigration" by Mark Krikorian is the best compilation of data and observations addressing the immigration chaos that I have ever read.
The Minuteman Project strongly recommends this book to anyone seriously interested in the root causes, and the prospective solutions, to the immigration dilemma that jeopardizes the future of the United States as a sovereign, prosperous, and civilized nation.
Krikorian, the director of the Center For Immigration Studies (CIS),
a Washington, DC super think tank on immigration issues, brings his years of expertise on immigration issues together in one compelling, virtual bible for both novices and pundits alike.
"The New Case Against Immigration" should be part of any U.S. history or sociology program at all secondary and post-secondary schools across the nation.
Jim Gilchrist, President and Founder, The Minuteman Project
Krikorian: A man for our times August 7, 2008
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
Mark Krikorian has taken a fresh look at the immigration conundrum and in a well-research and well-documented book has marshaled new arguments that suggest we are headed down the wrong road on both legal and illegal immigration. I have made similar but less well-reasoned arguments related to the mathematical concept of a limit: the limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. The question therefore becomes: How far down that road do we want to go? Krikorian, the grandson of Armenian immigrants, identifies a number of differences between the nature of our country and society now and during the earlier waves of immigration that made assimilation possible then but work against it today. One of the these ideas is the transnational community. When such a community reaches a critical mass in terms of population it becomes possible for its inhabitants to live full lives without assimilating culturally and linguistically and without changing their allegiance. This is an important book that every American should read, particularly members of congress and legislatures and candidates for state and federal office. Their myopia and inaction places America in grave danger.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
