October 06, 2018

The Somalis of Columbus

I'm reading books by a progressive and centrist on the immigration issue.

The progressive book concerns the large Sunni Muslim (Somali) immigrant population in Columbus, who are without many skills and very poor. Central Ohio has the second biggest Somali community in the U.S..

The more conservative is Reihan Salam’s new book, Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case against Open Borders.

Salam writes (emphasis mine):
[For the rich] immigrant poverty might be aesthetically displeasing, but these people are better off in absolute terms than they would be back home, and that is all that matters. That they are stuck on the bottom rungs of American society is — in a grand, global utilitarian calculus — immaterial.

To the rest of us, though, this is simply not tenable. We don’t want to live in an America with an underclass that is forever locked out of middle-class prosperity. We are glad that immigrants are better off than they were in their native countries, yes, but we also worry about the children they raise on American soil, and what will happen to our society if impoverished immigrants give rise to an impoverished second generation that has no memory of life in the old country and who won’t tolerate being relegated to second-class status.

And that is why I have come to believe that the United States badly needs a more thoughtful and balanced approach to immigration, including a greater emphasis on skills and a lesser one on extended family ties. I haven’t come to this position lightly. Though my reasons might be different from Trump’s, there is no getting around the fact that on the big-picture question of whether we ought to make our immigration system more selective, I am closer to his position than to those of most of my friends and family members.

Imagine an America in which wealthy whites and Asians wall themselves off from the rest of society, and low-wage immigrants and their offspring constitute a new underclass. Working-class Americans of color will look upon their more privileged fellow citizens with envy, if not resentment, and better-off whites will look upon their poorer brown and black counterparts with fear and suspicion. Whites will embrace a more hard-edged white-identity politics, and they will see efforts to redistribute their wealth as acts of racial aggression. Class politics will be color politics, and extremists on the left and the right will find millions of poor, angry youth willing to heed their calls to battle. No, I do not believe that this future is inevitable. But I fear that our heedless approach to immigration is making it more likely.

By limiting low-skill immigration, at least for a time, while welcoming high-skill immigration, we can change the dynamic. At the margin, doing so would ease wage pressures on established low-skill workers and make high-skill labor more abundant. Affluent professionals would face more competition, and they would surely resent it. Low-skill workers might face challenges, too, as rising wages would send employers scrambling to boost productivity. In time, though, a more selective, skills-based immigration system would yield a more egalitarian economy in which machines did the dirty work and workers enjoyed middle-class stability. And a more egalitarian economy would help heal our country’s ethnic divides.
The alternative, I fear, will be a kind of civil war — one pitting an increasingly radical socialist Left, one that sees America’s prosperity as a product of imperialism and open-borders immigration policies as a means toward a radical flattening of the global income distribution, against a reactionary Right that chooses tribalism over unifying nationalism. For our posterity’s sake, we must do everything we can to avoid that outcome.
And here are some quotes from a book by Stefanie Chambers titled, "Somalis in the Twin Cities and Columbus" in which she mentions they vote their pocketbook not their values (despite much complaining about how Democrat officeholders want their votes but don't want to do anything for them):
They are reliable Democratic voters, yet Somali social views of marriage, family values, business, and abortion rights align more with those of the Republican Party.
             
Unlike other racial and ethnic groups in Columbus, voter turnout is reportedly high among Somalis: precise numbers are impossible to confirm, but several respondents suggested that 80 to 90 percent of eligible Somalis vote. This high level of Somali voter turnout stands in contrast to research indicating that most immigrant groups have low levels of voter turnout.
                     
Some Somalis express views that align with Republican social positions, particularly in terms of opposition to same-sex marriage...However, alignment on social issues is not enough, for the positions taken by Republicans on immigration and the government’s social safety net for newcomers place Somalis at odds with the party.
             
One of the biggest threats to Somali social incorporation is the current attention paid by authorities to alleged Somali terrorist connections and recruiting. The skepticism and frustration expressed by respondents about federal investigations in their community raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of these efforts and highlight a lack of trust.

No comments: