Homeland Security, simple Kiwi style

Homeland Security in the United States involves a complex web of security agencies commissioning armed federal officers at every checkpoint of an airport, or a parade of FBI agents surrounding a federal office in the threat of terror. But in the Kiwi nation of New Zealand, big security blokes with pistols are not necessary.

It could be as simple as instituting a rigorous, state-mandated English examination for immigrants to qualify for residency. Of course, the intention nowadays of such an exam would be to exclude alien groups who cannot assimilate with the New Zealand way of life. This week, the New Zealand government raised the passing mark on its English test from 5 (which qualifies for secondary school study), to 6.5, which qualifies for university doctoral study.

On the surface, the new mark forces potential immigrants to work cohesively with the larger community in English. The context of immigration reform is the growing sense that there are too many Asians -- mostly Chinese -- in their universities and in their cities, who cannot fuse with the majority society. You may call this reform racist because it will turn away many of these immigrants. But with Homeland Security, I must disagree with you.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001 brought in a new era of national instability, and anti-immigrant far-right parties in New Zealand and across Europe believe in striking hard on immigration to make their nations more secure. These nations do not have American-style mass weaponry to secure their borders. Immigration reform is the simplest way to institute Homeland Security -- drive away potential threats to the country with the simplicity of a hard language exam, before trouble ever materializes.

New Zealand is not worried about people of Middle Eastern descent operating terror cells in apartments. Some residents, however, do not want to see their nation swamped with aliens who speak English as ineptly as Jackie Chan, or demonstrate their annoying proficiency in math and science, but they cannot distinguish Shakespeare from Hemmingway. Garth George, conservative columnist for The New Zealand Herald, recognized immigration reform as conducive to Homeland Security. He wrote, "I am careful whom I invite into my home. Because it is my home, I am entitled to be choosy. And New Zealand is as much my home as the house I live in."

Homeland Security is based on the simple theory of whom you would invite into your house. And if you were a middle class father running a family in the United States, you would never invite your daughter's Chinese immigrant boyfriend into your home because communication never happens, and conflict ensues. As George complained, "We don't want to have to assimilate alien cultures, many of which obviously don't want to be assimilated."

With New Zealand's immigration debate, the home has once again returned to government. To pick and choose is the gift of national autonomy. New Zealand, like the United States waging war on Iraq without the United Nations, or much of Europe clamping down immigrants despite the European Union's wrath, wants to demonstrate it. We need to understand one thing: The days of multiculturalism, integration, quotas and providing a good life to everyone, no matter who they are, are over.

The new days of home autonomy have already hit home. Washington State repealed the system of affirmative action, which imposed quotas to ensure diversity at the University of Washington and other state schools. Initiative-200 stunted the cultural diversity of black and Hispanic students, who defy national testing standards through their low performance. Nowadays, the UW uses a pick-and-choose policy, where the yardstick measurements of G.P.A.s and SAT scores are crucial in admitting the model-American college students. Before 1998, if you were underrepresented, you became represented, despite achieving a dismal 700 on the SAT. The University got autonomy from the bothersome system of meeting racial quotas. Only Asian students are willing to become part of a new neo-liberal and autonomous American culture.

If the Bush administration wants simpler Homeland Security, it may propose federal measures to kill affirmative action and make U.S. citizenship tests English-only. My father became a citizen by passing the test in his native language five years ago, but he can never play along with the majority American society. If the United States adopts the New Zealand stance, I would never see him struggle with airport security over his metal buckle and his militant-looking cowboy vest. Further, I would never see him again. My complete nuclear family defies the middle-class model, but I should not complain.

The verdict is in -- the rules have absolutely changed. For those who want diversity and racial tolerance as priorities in U.S. government policy, don't even try. As New Zealand and many European nations use their homey pick-and-choose approach to immigration policy and national security, the Bush administration would most likely do more with America's new immigrants by enacting stiffer measures. The flames of nationalism are burning more than ever. The home is now rebuilt, and the village is now sacked.