Immigration Indoctrination: Story Time For the Fourth of July

I recently took my young children to the public library for an early celebration of America’s 250th Birthday. Perhaps naively, I expected a patriotic gathering that would help my kids feel proud of America. No such luck. During story time, the librarian could have selected any children’s book about American history, independence, or what made America exceptional. Instead, she chose a book that spent every page talking about immigrants coming to America. The second page depicted Africans in chains being transported against their will on boats to the United States. Then every subsequent page repeated that maxim that people were allowed to come to America without regard to their race, gender, or religion. One page showed political refugees from the war-torn Middle East. Another page showed migrant workers from Mexico. And so on. I doubt any of the young children had the slightest clue what the book was trying to convey. But the kindly librarian thought this book was not only appropriate for an America 250 celebration but was important for toddlers to learn from. 

The library also featured a shelf highlighting books with immigration themes. I randomly pulled a book that was in both English and Spanish. It relays the experience of being a migrant child. The book depicts a family in Mexico living on a farm. There are two children, and the mother is visibly pregnant. The father says, “Pack your bags. We’re going to the States to have a better life.” For the children, the only thing needed to enter the United States was a desire for a better life. The next page depicts the children riding in a car without their mother and father. The caption reads, “We traveled north by bus and car. Some people had to help us cross the international bridge.” I presume this was a way to teach young children about coyotes and smugglers. The following page shows the family reunited in Los Angeles, with the mother having now given birth. Birthright citizenship in action. The imagery and messaging were very deliberate. 

The upshot of both books was clear: America is a sinful nation for slavery, but what makes America great is admitting aliens from the poorest and most dangerous countries in the world. Mind you, this event was intended for children as young as three years old. There are many salacious reports about “Drag Queen Story Time,” while “Immigration Indoctrination Story Time” flies under the radar. This sort of thing happens in every library and school across the country. Were parents really expected to explain slavery in chains to toddlers who are tethered by backpack-leashes? Should parents discuss what it means to exclude people on the basis of race, gender, and religion? Did the librarian anticipate that one of the dads in the room was a law professor who could recount how our immigration laws were entirely based on race for much of American history? 

Efforts to teach young children about complex topics will invariably fail. When my daughter was about four, her nursery school tried to do a lesson on Martin Luther King Day. It backfired spectacularly. She came home one day and said: “Children with brown skin should not be allowed to have any ice cream.” I started asking some questions and figured out what happened. The teachers were trying to teach these young kids about segregation and said that black kids were not allowed to have ice cream. The lesson the kids took away was that kids with different skin colors are bad and should not get ice cream. We provided a correction at home, but the unforced error was already committed. I’m sure the well-meaning teachers at the school thought they served an important role, just like the librarian. But this is their worldview, and they do not know any other way. 

These vignettes illustrate how public perceptions of race in general, and immigration in particular, have become an absolute form of indoctrination. During my New York City public school education, I learned very little about American history, but I certainly learned that American immigration policy, based on “quotas” favoring certain nations, was racist. I couldn’t quote a sentence from the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address, but I certainly memorized Emma Lazarus’s poem: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” At every stage in my education, I was only taught how immigration from all nations makes America great, that migrants were doing jobs Americans did not want to do, and that immigration laws should not restrict people who were just trying to make a better life for their families. I’ve written about the DEI-addled multicultural day, which reinforces this monolithic position about immigration. 

I’ll admit I largely accepted these dogmas well into my adulthood, even as a political conservative. Only in the past decade or so have my views shifted. Debates about immigration suffer from what I’ve described as liberal institutional asymmetries. On one side of the ledger is the position reinforced by every facet of elite opinion in the media, academia, and popular culture: people should be allowed to migrate where they will be happier. On the other side of the ledger are attacks labeled as racism, bigotry, and xenophobia. A public policy debate on a pressing issue cannot be held when one prominent position is dismissed out of hand. Moreover, this dichotomy is an error. Any debate about immigration must turn on nationality and foreign policy considerations. To take that factor off the table is to be forced to accept the liberal position on immigration. As Justice Thomas recently observed in Mullin v. Doe, “If equal protection principles applied to immigration decisions, much of even our current immigration law would conflict with this Court’s modern equal protection doctrine.” But only Justice Thomas on the Court was willing to speak this truth. 

Liberal asymmetries are difficult to break. They are so deeply embedded in every facet of our institutions that those in the conservative legal movement refused to acknowledge their existence. Story time at the library is an early opportunity for indoctrination. The first step to equalize asymmetries is to address them candidly and move past arguments that shut down the debate. Next time I’ll do more than quietly leave Story Time. Other parents should do so as well. 

‍Josh Blackman holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook, and is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.