"We're just recognizing reality."

From the League of the South blog:
Proposal for Vietnam Town in US city gathers force

From our ever-expanding “Blood is thicker than water” file, yet another ethnic group begins carving its piece of the former United States of America:

A Vietnamese-American official in the US has proposed establishing a commercial center called ‘Vietnam Town’ in San Jose City where 85,000 people of Vietnamese descent live.

San Jose City Councilwoman Madison Nguyen, said the time had arrived to officially mark a business place for the community. Nguyen, who in 2005 became the first person of Vietnamese descent to be elected to the city council, plans to ask the council within the next few weeks to designate a one-mile strip along Story Road as the city’s first Vietnamese business district.

The pro-immigration crowd insists that people who come here from distant lands want to become one of us, and that somehow makes them “more American” than those of us who were merely born here. Yet, if that happy interpretation were true, immigrants would assimilate to the dominant American culture, rather than establishing ethnic enclaves.

San Jose’s gutless but honest mayor admitted why the measure should be supported:

Mayor Chuck Reed backs the idea, saying designating an area that is already home to nearly 200 Vietnamese-owned businesses merely “recognizes the facts on the ground.” “We are not trying to create something that doesn’t already exist - it’s already full of Vietnamese businesses. We’re more recognizing a reality than creating it.”

Indeed. Each colonizer [ed. the strikeout didn't copy] immigrant who comes here to reap the rewards of Western civilization for his own people is another “fact on the ground” that we cannot ignore. At some point, the critical mass is undeniable, and ethnic enclaves will carve up the former US, nourished by our economy and protected by our rule of law, the free market, and the protection of private property—institutions their native cultures could not sustain.

This was fully understood by many residents who opposed the Vietnam City:

However, critics say the proposed Vietnamese business neighborhood may probably cause separatism between Vietnamese residents and other ethnic groups there.

Last year, Santa Clara residents and businesses mounted a successful petition drive to block Korean merchants from declaring a section of El Camino Real as a Koreatown. The concern, residents there said, was that declaring one part of Santa Clara an ethnic enclave promoted separatism rather than the idea of a common community.

Problem is, you cannot have a “common community” without a confident, energized, well-defined identity that defines that community. The whole point of multiculturalism is that it’s discriminatory to sustain one dominant culture in a political and geograqphic unit (that is, a true nation shaped by a common history, culture, language, etc.). Government, the corporate media, and academia have done such a throrough job of demonizing America’s traditional Western culture that they’ve shamed many into passively accepting their own cultural demise. It is only natural that newcomers will continue to embrace their old identity as far more meaningful and inspiring than the formless, shapeless, and bland “citizen of the world” that the multicults imagine America should become.

I hadn't heard of these proposals, then again I haven't been home for a while. As far as I know, most of the people who live in that part of San Jose are Vietnamese or Hispanic. Do most of the business owners live in the area, with respect to both the Vietnamese businesses and the Korean ones? I think so. I agree that it would be better not to "officially" recognize an ethnic business enclave, but how would Vietnam Town differ from SF Chinatown, which is officially recognized as such? (Is it not?)

"At some point, the critical mass is undeniable, and ethnic enclaves will carve up the former US, nourished by our economy and protected by our rule of law, the free market, and the protection of private property—institutions their native cultures could not sustain."

Here is the vaunted appeal to the "rule of law" typically made by liberals, and which Americans seem to think is a tradition unique to the United States (maybe they'll concede that it is to be found in the U.K. and the rest of the Europe). Were there private businesses in Korea and Vietnam before the advent of Communism? And whose fault was it that Communism was able to get a foothold in Asia in the first place? Is there anything intrinsic to Korean or Vietnamese culture that would prohibit small business from developing? As for the protection of private property--who doesn't perceive the injury when their property is taken away, whether it be by another individual or by the state?

Can one have a decent democracy without the rule of law? No. Can one have the rule of law without a democracy? Yes. Can one have the protection of private property without American democracy? Yes, though the checks against tyranny are slightly different.

Integration and assimilation into one political community is important--but when fellow immigrants begin to congregate, the development of such enclaves is to be expected. After all, it's already happened in the past, with respect to other groups, Italians, Irish, Poles, Germans. Will Asians eventually assimilate into American society? More so than Hispanics in the Southwest, one would think, as their numbers continue to increase and their links to their nation are strengthened.

More on the cultural differences that exist between E. Asian cultures and American culture to come.

See also Oklahoma’s Brand of Immigration Reform Barely Makes News; Guess Why?