Multiculturalism and Immigration

"Take the time to read this; It ought to scare the pants off you!" is the title of a recent post I read from one of my Listservs. It cites a speech by Governor Richard Lamm; you can read the speech here. It essentially argues that multiculturalism is destroying America. I sent the following response to the Listserv, and thought I would publish it here, in case anyone was interested.

There is much in this that I agree with -- to the list of countries cited as evidence that true multiculturalism generally weakens societies, I would add Mexico. (However, it might also be useful to consider Switzerland.) I also agree that the emphasis on trying to keep ethnic groups ethnic, rather than encouraging some degree of "Americanization", is generally harmful.

However, even this is also true to a limited extent. I'm proud to be a Dutch-American, and relish the (admittedly small and few) differences that creates between myself and other Americans. However, while I still wish my mother had taught me Dutch as a child, I'm usually pretty glad I speak English. Perhaps one way to put it as that I think of myself as an American with ancestors who happen to have come from the Netherlands, rather than as someone with ancestors from the Netherlands who happens to live in America.

But in general, the difficulties specifically mentioned in the speech are more deserving of the label 'fear-mongering', not 'prophetic'. Sure, political correctness can become pernicious, but it is on the downswing, not the upswing (though, see the work of David Bernstein, especially You Can't Say That!). Lamm mentions 100 languages; how many of these are really ripping apart our cultural identity? The claim that Spanish-speaking immigrants are harming our identity as Americans isn't ridiculous, but I've never met a Bosnian immigrant who didn't speak at least a bit of English (and I've me enough that this isn't a meaningless claim.) Most immigrants seem to want to be American, and if not the immigrants themselves, then their children.

Economic woes are singularly complex, but it is certainly not illegal immigrants who are causing our economic woes. Illegal immigrants are net contributors to our economy, providing a cheap labor source (which means that goods and services are cheaper), and paying far more in taxes than they get back (since, contrary to the 'received wisdom', they do pay taxes, but they rarely ask for refunds). As far as corporate out-sourcing goes, that's the sort of thing that naturally happens -- for the economy generally considered, it's neither positive or negative. It's a change in the sort of economy we have, which does hurt individual workers (and this is a problem we need to think about), but in the long run, it doesn't hurt the economy as a whole, In general, it seems to me that the concerns presented in this email are more alarmist than true.

Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

YOU ARE 28 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1332!

You are not a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure at all: you're the statute that allows the federal district courts to hear diversity of citizenship actions! You were drafted with the idea that an out-of-state party may be unduly prejudiced by appearing in a foreign state. Sometimes people may think that you're strange, and they try to minimalize your effects by requiring an amount in controversy and by being especially strict on the requirements for diversity. Also, attorneys often use you for "forum shopping" and other undesirable behavior. But there's no getting around the fact that you're so darned loveable! Your delightful quirkiness entertains friends and law professors alike, and although others may grumble about your eccentricities behind your back, they're always talking about you, so you must be doing something right. Let's face it, the world could use a few more 28 USC 1332's!

I'd say this isn't what I would have guessed, but I'm not sure what I would have guessed in any case...

Shaka, when the walls fell

For some reason, I've been thinking alot about the Gilgamesh myth lately. For example, I've been describing my feeling approaching exams as Gilgamesh heading out to face Enkidu. I don't know why I'm feeling this myth as being particularly appropriate right now, but I just thought I'd share.

Well, so one of the signs of my insomnia is that I start having weird fantasies. One of the signs that I'm not quite normal is that my fantasies aren't necessarily the usual type, but tend to involve sorites paradoxes (see earlier post) or Justice Scalia (no, still not those type of fantasies, thank God). This night's fantasy (courtesy of lightspeed briefs) was meeting Scalia, and so impressing him with my intellectual acumen that he offered to hire me as a clerk for my 2L summer. Obviously one of the most unlikely fantasies I've ever had. I need a less stressful profession...

So I'm not the only one...

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the comments sections on some of the legal blogs I try to read have deteriored markedly in the past two days or so. Perhaps I'm not the only one a bit stressed over finals, and suffering mentally as a result.

The Joy of Insomnia

So, I really need to sleep, given that this is finals week, so naturally that means I can't. Which means that my mind goes on really weird tangents. I'll save the baldness/least interesting number/can anything completely lack power? discussion for later. For now, it'll be the discussion of lawful good vs. lawful neutral.

As you may or may not know, one of the odder elements of Dungeons & Dragons is a system of 'alignment', based on two axes. One axis is clear enough -- is the character good, evil, or somewhere in between. The more difficult axis is the lawful/chaotic axis. It's hard to describe, even if one has an intuitive understanding oneself, what it means to be lawful or chaotic. So this gives rise to a lot of philosophical musing on my part. (Hey, I'm not saying it's inherently philosophically interesting, I'm just saying I find it interesting. But then again, I find the merits of cauliflower over broccoli interesting.)

But anyway, I was thinking about the difference between Lawful Neutral (a character who's lawful on the one axis, but neutral on the good/evil axis) and Lawful Good, and sort of thought the following. For someone who's Lawful Neutral, one could almost say that the law exists for its own sake, not for the sake of a higher good. Put perhaps a bit more sympathetically, we could say that this person views the law as primarily a tool for promoting social order, rather than some higher good. But someone who's Lawful Good views the law as tool for promoting a higher good, the good of Justice.

What does this mean in more concrete terms? It seems to mean, among other things, that those favoring a strict, literal construction of laws are going to tend more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. (Of course, this whole discussion points to the inadequacy of D&D alignment to explain real world behavior...) It also seems to indicate that the US system of law is Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral. The law -- and by this, I mean statutory, case, and common law -- reflects a bias towards justice and against literality all over the place. How often does a court or a legislature use a phrase like "shall do so when in the interest of justice" or "when not inconsistent with the demands of justice." This seems to indicate that the legislature or court is trying, not so much to create a consistent rule, as to create a system as best they can that serves the interest of justice. And as we all know, justice is more than a matter of mere law.

Just found an amusing ditty about why you should avoid the internet -- you can find it at this link.

Hat tip to discourse.net for pointing this out.

Overheard at the Law School

From M: I'm afraid of the dancing chicken.

Law, Order, and Total Depravity

So I'm watching Law and Order (I'm sure you're all surprised), and was reminded of one of my favorite themes of the show. The episode revolves around a butcher, who's forced to take shortcuts by the large corporation he supplies his meat to. As a result of these shortcuts, five children die. Later, some kid journalist is snooping around, taking pictures, and the butcher confronts him to get the film. The kid won't give it to him, and so the butcher kills him.

What gets me is the comment of the butcher when he finally confesses to McCoy. "I never thought I could do something like that." And this is a common theme in L&O, repeated in one form or another quite often. Someone who doesn't think themself to be capable of some evil, or someone who would appear to be incapable of doing evil (they're such a nice person), does something absolutely horrible.

It's a nice way, I think, to drive home the kernel of truth behind that Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Whatever veneer of respectability, 'niceness', or other facade we present to others and/or ourselves, there's a depraved, self-centered person there beneath, some sort of 'old man'. We can certainly fool others, and usually fool ourselves, but he's lurking there all the same. So why should we be surprised if we find ourselves, or others who seem to be 'nice people' capable of all sorts of horrendous evil.

So this is what a blog looks like from behind...

Well, after many months of looking at other people's blogs, I thought I'd create my own. Don't expect anything earth-shattering, hilarious, or otherwise less than mediocre. Expect new posts while I'm in Civil Procedure :)

I suppose I'll probably mostly be posting thoughts on the law or on philosophy, but there'll probably be plenty of random musings.