When debating immigration policy with people who have deluded themselves into believing that it’s any of their business where other people choose to live or work, I run into a lot of bad arguments. Of all those arguments, probably the silliest is “but they don’t speak English.”

The simplest, and most appropriate response to that argument comes from comedian Doug Stanhope: “Then don’t talk to ’em.” Problem solved. But I can’t get a whole column out of that response, so let’s take apart the fake “issue” in a little more detail.

Often, the argument starts off with fake tones of sympathy. Those poor immigrants — how will they ever get jobs and “assimilate” if they don’t know “the national language?” Send them back for their own good!

Oddly, the same people almost always immediately turn to the claim that “MY grandparents came here from [insert country], and you know what they did? They learned English!”

Clue: Your grandparents weren’t special exceptions. Most immigrants who don’t already know English will learn it, especially if their career ambitions require them to.

The next turn is generally something along the lines of “English is the ‘national language,’ and no nation can survive without a common language.”

English is a fairly dominant language in the US at this time, although Spanish seems to be gaining. But the US has never had a “national language.” It’s always hosted a mix.

The Declaration of Independence was initially published in the five most common American languages as of 1776: English, French, German, Dutch, and Spanish.

English really started gaining dominance in the 20th century, after the US government drafted millions of men into the armed forces for World War Two and insisted they be able to take orders in English (in the previous largest US military mobilization, for the Civil War, the Union army formed segregated regiments of e.g. German speakers).

But there are still entire urban neighborhoods where one might walk several blocks and hear nothing but Mandarin or Yiddish or Russian or Hindi. And in large swaths of the country, Spanish competes with English for dominance.

A single common language in a country is the exception — and in countries with populations of more than 200 million there are no such exceptions — not the rule.

India, for example, boasts 23 “official” languages, 122 “major” languages, and, according to its 2001 census, 1,599 other languages.

While forceful government policy has made Mandarin the dominant “first language” in China, more than 300 other languages survive.

Typical among western European countries is Belgium, with three “official” and several regional languages, in addition to nearly 40% of the population speaking English.

There are no good arguments for immigration authoritarianism, but the  “they don’t speak English” dodge is easily the least convincing.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Well,  it’s time for one of those periodic “debt ceiling” fights in Congress. Every so often, American politicians argue over whether to allow themselves to borrow more money, with their promise to beat it out of your hide, plus interest, later, as their collateral.

These fights get dramatic, in the manner of a “professional wrestling match.” Sometimes there’s even a fake “government shutdown” until one side finally cries uncle and agrees that under no circumstances must the US government live within its means and that more money will just have to be borrowed.

Why? Because they can, that’s why. Or, rather, they can for now. But it can’t and won’t last forever.

Writing at the American Institute for Economic Research (“America’s Fiscal History: From Liberty to Paternalism”), Richard M. Ebeling notes that in 1868 (the first year the World Almanac made such figures available), the US government spent a whopping $301 million — adjusting for inflation, $5.8 billion.

Last year, the US government spent about $6.6 trillion.

A billion is one-thousandth of a trillion.

Last year, the US government spent about 1,138 times as much as it did 152 years ago — and borrowed $3.1 trillion of that money.

To put it in different terms, last year the US government spent about $12.5 million per minute, every minute of every hour of every day, and borrowed about $5.9 million per minute, every minute of every hour of every day.

According to USDebtClock.org, federal spending for 2021 stands (as I write this) at more than $7 trillion, and federal borrowing at more than $3 trillion, with three months remaining in the year.

The “national debt” — actually the debt of the US government, but of course the politicians want to fob off responsibility on you, even though you never co-signed their loans — currently stands at nearly $29 trillion. “Your share,” if indeed paying off their bar tab was your responsibility, would come to about $86,000.

If you haven’t already, it’s time to face a few unpleasant facts.

Fact #1: At some point, the politicians’ creditors are going to decide that loaning money to the US government has become too risky a proposition. It will get harder, eventually nearly impossible, for the US government to borrow more money.

Fact #2: The politicians’ debt is never going to be paid off. The US government is going to default sooner or later, whether openly or through scams like “monetization.”

Fact #3: When those things happen, it’s going to hurt everyone. Including you. The US government is going to raise taxes, and it’s going to cut “services,” and the dollars in your wallet are going to buy less.

Silver lining: The above process will likely end with the US government as we know it ceasing to exist. Hopefully, but not necessarily, to be replaced by something better.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe American politicians will suddenly become fiscally responsible, refuse to raise the “debt ceiling,” and insist on a balanced budget that includes paying down that $29 trillion principal.

If you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property I’d like to talk with you about.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“Working class Bronx native”  served US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) well as “elect me” schtick in 2018.

It wasn’t true — Ocasio-Cortez is an architect’s daughter who grew up in the tony suburb of Yorktown Heights (median family income of $137,580 versus the US median family income of $68,703), attended Boston University, and interned for US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before putting together her “just your average waitress” PR package — but it got the political job done.

AOC continues to  lean on that carefully polished mythology, most recently at the annual Met Gala, where she introduced herself and the designer of her “Tax the Rich” gown as “two working class women.”

I’ve not heard anyone explain how a “working class” gal like AOC afforded the $35,000 ticket to the gala on her pittance of a congressional salary (only $174,000 per year; the ticket cost nearly as much as the US median personal income, $35,977). Unless she manages her money very well, it seems likely that someone gave her the ticket, which makes me wonder what kind of political favors such a large bribe might be intended to buy.

I have to wonder how much money the real working class stiffs — wait staff, doormen, chauffeurs, etc. — lurking in the corners of the Met Gala’s celebrity footage earn per  year.  I bet that number falls closer to US median than AOC median.

I also have to wonder what those working class stiffs look like. They were required to wear masks while catering to the needs of AOC and her fellow ruling class party attendees as they hammed it up for the cameras, bare-faced so we could admire their pearly whites and hear the bon mots that they deigned to speak rather than air-brush onto their costumes.

The masked and anonymous serving staff included one poor guy filmed trotting along behind AOC like some European monarch’s valet, holding up the train of her designer gown to keep it from touching the ground.

Marie Antoinette supposedly never uttered the phrase “let them eat cake,” or displayed the lack of awareness of or compassion for working class conditions associated with that phrase. Is her unfortunate image as manufactured and mythological as AOC’s “working class” pretensions?

While her “Tax the Rich” gown certainly attracted attention, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez would  have been more on point with a slogan from George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY