Hi Chris,



I’m an Independent Massachusetts voter, and after reading your recent piece in Bloomberg View, “What Birthright Citizenship Meant for Me”, the following statement stuck out to me, and I was curious to know why you think your situation is relevant?
:


“…providing an incentive to integrate, a reason to adopt the values and customs of your new country as if they were your own, ought to be just as important for people whose foreignness helps drive public sentiment against them.” 



It sounds like you are suggesting that, for lack of a better work, “Anchor Babies” are an incentive for immigrants to assimilate. I would agree, historically that it was probably the case and still is for some folks like yourselves. However, I don’t think your situation is a parallel to what a growing percentage of society feels is the problem... which is to say, it doesn’t seem like people want to integrate.


Are your kids in public school yet? If so, how many languages does your school system need to support? In my town is it almost 30. And I hear about areas of this country where over 50% (or more) of people speak Spanish at home. If the incentive to integrate (in this case Birthright Citizenship - which has always been there) is not working, isn’t the next logical step disincentives?


I’m 37 years old and was given a chance in Junior High to learn Spanish or French. I chose French, and I rue the decision to this day. If I had hindsight, should I have un-assimilated myself to my new country? 
The other problem with your parallel -which you point out yourself- is that most immigrants are not “Canadians who sit at keyboards.” To leave that statement as is without explaining the difference is significant.

The math is important.

Canadians who sit at keyboards are outliers, statistically insignificant in terms of this issue.
 

‘Big Jim Slade’ resides in Western Massachusetts.