fbpx

Can America Remain a Nation of Immigrants in the 21st Century?

We often call ours “a nation of immigrants.” It is a peculiar and paradoxical phrase. A “nation,” as generally understood, is a tribal, ethnic, or historical group. In the era of the American Revolution, a nation, a people, a tribe, and a race were often interchangeable terms. Nation, as the word is usually used by scholars, often retains some of that heritage. Hence a noted academic like Ernest Gellner could write in his book Nations and Nationalism (1983) that “nationalism uses the pre-existing, historically inherited proliferation of cultures or cultural wealth.”

Nationalism presupposes some sort of historical unity. Meanwhile, immigrants are people who come from somewhere else to settle.

So “nation of immigrants” suggests right off the bat that America is a peculiar sort of nation, perhaps even an exceptional one. Indeed American nationalism, unlike most other nationalisms, has been primarily political rather than cultural. Citizenship, not heritage, makes one an American. Hence, the day someone becomes an American citizen, he is American in the essential sense of the term. By contrast, if it is possible to become Chinese, French, or Egyptian, it is nonetheless very difficult. A tribal, ethnic, or racial nationalism is incompatible with mass assimilation.

Continued immigration, perhaps with periodic slowdowns to allow for more thorough absorption of new arrivals, probably has been a good thing from this perspective. A society without much immigration would tend toward the more usual (and usually retrograde) ethnic nationalism. A fairly high level of immigration, therefore, helps to keep politics central to our national identity. The common political conversation becomes the one thing that binds us together. If high immigration might be a necessary precondition for the persistence of political nationalism, though, it is probably not a sufficient condition.

Why did the newly formed United States welcome immigrants? The answer, in part, is that it was tradition already. The colonies were settler societies that, as a rule, continued to welcome new migrants throughout the colonial period, and not just from the British isles. By the time of the American Revolution, 40 percent of Pennsylvania’s population was of German extraction. These immigrants became Americans. As Thomas Paine, himself a recent arrival, wrote in Common Sense in 1776: “all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are COUNTRYMEN.” Paine was idealizing. Assimilating all Europeans to a common identity was not so simple; but it did, in time, happen.

Although we have had some serious bumps in the road, and have at times committed gross injustice toward immigrants, it is nonetheless true that America has been exceptional in this regard. We believe Emma Lazarus’s words and try to act accordingly. That we fail sometimes is not surprising. Xenophobia is instinctive in man. Love of our own, and dislike or distrust of outsiders, is natural. Welcoming large numbers of newcomers is rare; assimilating them is difficult. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Can the United States remain a nation of immigrants in the 21st century? To answer that question, we need to consider what made it possible for it to be a nation of immigrants, and consider whether those conditions remain. In history, mass migration has generally involved some superior force, as in the case of the Scots who came to dominate Northern Ireland. Open borders, though, can have the same effect if there is not at the same time mass assimilation.

Is America’s very essence at risk? As I see it, we face two key challenges to our status as a nation of immigrants: The rise of the mega-state threatens to transform the nature of American nationhood, even as the rise of a post-national ideal threatens to undermine the understandings that have made assimilation a duty and an obligation.

To understand the question of immigration and what to do about it, it is key to consider the place of immigrants in the American regime as a whole.

American Nationalism

From the start, as I said, America did not constitute a nation in the usual sense. Similarly, we lacked a state in the usual, modern sense. We had no single, universal sovereign with the authority to make law in “all cases whatsoever,” to use the phrase British Parliament included in the Declaratory Act of 1766. Indeed, the American Revolution was a rejection of exactly such a sovereign.

In 1820, Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, gave a fine account of the American attitude toward immigration, at least the attitude prevailing in his time. Responding to an inquiry from Europe about migration here, Adams expanded on the subject, highlighting three themes:

  • The United States is a different kind of nation;
  • Immigrants should come here to work, expecting no favors from the government; and
  • Their children should become American.

Adams believed that immigrants can be a blessing. He noted “the additional strength and wealth, which accrues to the nation, by the accession of a mass of healthy, industrious, and frugal laborers.” Even so, he added, “the government of the United States has never adopted any measure to encourage or invite emigrants from any part of Europe. It has never held out any incitements to induce the subjects of any other sovereign to abandon their own country, to become inhabitants of this.”

Why, if the U.S. government did nothing actively to recruit immigrants, did so many people choose to come? For the opportunities America provided. As Secretary Adams put it:

We understand perfectly, that of the multitude of foreigners who yearly flock to our shores, to take up here their abode, none come from affection or regard to a land to which they are total strangers. . . . We know that they come with views, not to our benefit, but to their own—not to promote our welfare, but to better their own condition.

And then, what made the United States a place that, far above others, offered such prospects? Its treatment of men as equals. It was a society that afforded no special privileges to any individual or group. The Civil War would tackle, or begin to tackle, the great exception to that rule. Adams (not incidentally a great champion of the abolition of slavery) addressed the “one principle which pervades all the institutions of this country, and which must always operate as an obstacle to the granting of favors to new comers.”

This is, he went on,

 a land, not of privileges, but of equal rights. Privileges are granted by European sovereigns to particular classes of individuals, for purposes of general policy; but the general impression here is that privileges granted to one denomination of people, can very seldom be discriminated from erosions of the rights of others.

President Coolidge, speaking at the dedication of a Jewish community center a little over a century later, would say much the same thing:

 Our country has done much for the Jews who have come here to accept its citizenship and assume their share of its responsibilities in the world. But I think the greatest thing it has done for them has been to receive them and treat them precisely as it has received and treated all others who have come to it. If our experiment in free institutions has proved anything, it is that the greatest privilege that can be conferred upon people in the mass is to free them from the demoralizing influence of privilege enjoyed by the few.

In America, unlike in Europe, Jews were free to be Jews (or not to be Jews, for that matter). Similarly, they were free to pursue any occupation they chose, and the responsibility for success or failure was on the individual’s shoulders. That’s an idealized picture, to be sure. Prejudice got in the way often enough. But it was closer to being the case here than it had been in any other nation in history, and perhaps was coming as close to that ideal as is possible so long as human nature remains what it is.

The “libertarian” charter of the early republic, to use Gordon Wood’s word for the classical liberal regime that prevailed in that day, provided opportunities but also placed a burden on individuals. Quincy Adams had admonished that immigrants “are not to expect favors from the governments. They are to expect, if they choose to become citizens, equal rights with those of the natives of the country.”

In other words, they come because they can work for themselves. No feudal lord or master would tell them what to do, nor would he, to use Jefferson’s phrase, “take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” In sum, said Adams, “They come to a life of independence,” but also “to a life of labor—and, if they cannot accommodate themselves to the character, moral, political, and physical, of this country, with all its compensating balances of good and evil. . . . [they may] return to the land of their nativity and their fathers.”

Adams believed that it was the duty of those who wish to become citizens to become part of the American community in an even more robust sense—or at least to ensure that their children would:

To one thing they must make up their minds, or, they will be disappointed in every expectation of happiness as Americans. They must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity, rather than backward to their ancestors; they must be sure that whatever their own feelings may be, those of their children will cling to the prejudices of this country, and will partake of that proud spirit, not unmingled with disdain, which you have observed is remarkable in the general character of this people.

It was the duty of all immigrants to renounce any foreign allegiance. In the words of the Naturalization Act of 1790, each new citizen must pledge to “support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever.” Note the peculiar language. Allegiance is not to the “nation” or to a prince or king. It is to the Constitution, to the fundamental law of the United States.

By logical implication, to support the Constitution is to support the principles upon which that document is based. Truly to be American, truly to “support the constitution of the United States,” one had to agree with one’s countrymen about the greatness of America. When they “cast off their European skin,” they would be obliged, even, to “cling to the prejudices of this country.” That meant “partake[ing] of that proud spirit” of American patriotism. What was that prejudice? It was a belief in the superiority of a nation built upon the principles of 1776, or as Adams put it:

That feeling of superiority over other nations which you have noticed, and which has been so offensive to other strangers, who have visited these shores, arises from the consciousness of every individual that, as a member of society, no man in the country is above him; and, exulting in this sentiment, he looks down upon those nations where the mass of the people feel themselves the inferiors of privileged classes, and where men are high or low, according to the accidents of their birth.

More famous words along these lines come from the senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln, who told the people of Illinois much the same thing about American nationalism. “Perhaps half our people,” Lincoln said,

have come from Europe themselves, or [their] ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. . . . When they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are.

Truly to be an American is to be part of a regime built upon the principles of 1776. It was those principles that justified breaking away from the mother country, and that justified creating a new constitution for the Union by ratification, “deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Those principles might be universal, but they were also peculiarly American, and fundamental to the United States in a way that they were not to any other nation. Lincoln knew as well as anyone that there were real problems in America. He also knew that there was nothing wrong with America that could not be fixed by applying what was right with America.

Immigration and the Mega-State

So it goes back in our history, this felt relationship between a government that treated people as equal individuals and a government that did not dispense special privileges. The U.S. government did so few things, in fact, that it mostly left people to themselves. Part of the reason immigrants were able to come in such numbers is that such a policy was congruent with the generally limited reach of federal power. To be sure, Adams, a National Republican and a Whig, supported what became known as the American System; but that was a far cry from what we have today. There is a rather large difference between building roads and canals, and regulating, for example, the conditions of employment for each and every business in the country.

As the 19th century came to a close, the American republic was a peculiar republic: very large and yet with a limited government. The statesmen of the era understood that building and expanding a centralized government over such a vast, diverse territory would imperil the maintenance of a republic of free and equal citizens.

Madison noted in a Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” That was intentional. The extended republic cured the problem of faction by only allowing general legislation regarding those areas in which there was universal agreement. In contrast, passing uniform laws covering a proliferating number of particular matters, and imposing them over such an expanse, would be arbitrary—what would be fitting in one place would be improper in another. Should the powers of the federal government increase, said Madison (in his Report of 1800), the rule of law would have to decrease. It would lead to a government of executive discretion.

Progressives, as they looked back on that limited-government model, would see it as uncharitable. But it was seen by Madison, Adams and others as a way of securing equality before the law and among citizens. And up through the dawn of the 20th century, that was basically the model being followed, particularly at the national level. Even at the end of the Progressive Era, when the United States closed the door on mass immigration for 40 years, our state was rather small. At the same time, patriotism was high. Today, our federal government is massive, influencing our daily lives in ways that few imagined or expected a century ago. With this “New American State,” to use Stephen Skowronek’s term for it, comes, inevitably, a new relation between government and citizen.

The more things the central government does, the more necessary executive discretion becomes. Such a government becomes not a government of laws but a government of the best judgment of the employees of the executive branch. Such has been the direction of change since the Progressive Era, and it has transformed the relationship between citizen and state. Once government is based upon such discretion, lobbying the central authorities becomes increasingly important. This means that Americans organize themselves by what Madison would have called factions—be they business groups, workers’ groups of various sorts, ethnic groups, regional geographic groups, groups pursuing a certain activity or ideological commitment (the Right-to-Lifers, the environmentalists).

Growing the administrative state, by the way, was anathema to figures like Benjamin Franklin. Shortly after the American Revolution, Franklin conveyed his qualms in an essay, not coincidentally on immigration, that affirmed a passage in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The independent state’s new constitution abjured the proliferation of governmental posts that would earn the occupants taxpayer-funded salaries. The effects of this expansion, quoted Franklin, “are Dependance and Servility, unbecoming Freemen, in the Possessors and Expectants; [and] Faction, Contention, Corruption, and Disorder among the People.” In other words, immigrants would be mistaken if they came to America and asked the government to take care of them, as their betters were supposed to do in Europe. The Pennsylvanians’ reasoning was impeccable. Whether one asks a hereditary Lord or an elected governor for a job, the relationship between official power and the individual is the same, one of patron and client. The more offices, the more clients there will be.

The more offices modern politicians have to dispense, the more factions will be generated around them, as men (and women today) organize themselves into groups seeking those offices. Such a government must, by its very nature, relate to individuals in the way of New York’s Tammany Hall or Richard J. Daley’s Chicago political machine.

In light of this New American State, the immigrant experience changes fundamentally. As ethnic groups arrive, the pattern will be “Welcome to the U.S., here’s your official lobbying group.” To be sure, ethnic organizations are not new. Jews, for example, organized charitable groups to help their fellow Jews and lobbied to combat discrimination—such as the quotas limiting the number of Jews admitted to elite schools. Jews, by the same token, had groups dedicated to teaching recent arrivals how to be good Americans.

Today we have groups like La Raza, which do not encourage assimilation and which lobby the government to ensure their constituencies get their share of goodies from the government. They lobby to ensure that colleges admit, and large businesses hire, a certain percentage of people from a particular group. They lobby the government not to secure fair opportunities for minority businesses to compete for government contracts, but to guarantee a certain percentage of those contracts.

It is also true that the more Latinos assimilate, the less important a group like La Raza becomes. Hence the leadership has little interest in assimilation. The rise of the mega-state makes it much more likely that new Americans will learn to think of themselves as parts of client groups rather than as equal individual citizens.

Multiculturalism as an ideology would grow naturally in the soil prepared by this New American State. By the late 1980s, a member of an academic committee at the University of Pennsylvania noted her “deep regard for the individual and my desire to protect the freedoms of all members of society.” [emphasis in original] She was verbally smacked down by an administrator for using the word “individual.” This was, she was told, a “a RED FLAG phrase today, which is considered by many to be RACIST. Arguments that champion the individual over the group ultimately privilege the ‘individuals’ who belong to the largest or dominant group.”[1] It is not healthy that that ideology prevails on our campuses, where many new arrivals will learn, if anything, to be highly suspicious of citizenship in the classic American sense.

A Post-American World

At the same time that we have transformed American government, we have created an elite that rejects classic American patriotism. Recall Quincy Adams’ argument that immigrants who wish to stay must shed their foreign identities and become, or make sure their children become, fully American. Adams did not think the United States perfect—far from it. Still, newcomers must align themselves with the principles of the American regime. He steadfastly hoped that the country itself would come to embrace those principles more fully—by eliminating slavery in the South just as his home state had done shortly after 1776.

Today’s Progressives increasingly see themselves as part of a trans-national movement, working toward a cosmopolitan, post-national world. By transcending the nation-state, they hope, they can render war a thing of the past. If we are all part of one, big human family, and if we all work together for common, global prosperity and health, we will not choose to fight. That change of attitude not only makes assimilation a challenge—it means we hear influential voices wondering whether assimilation is at all worthwhile.

Students in America’s elite institutions today learn that the nation has fundamental defects, and that we need wisdom from other cultures. Recall Michelle Obama, a product of Princeton University, saying that America is “downright mean,” and saying that she was never proud to be an American until her husband was a successful candidate in the presidential primaries. As Dana Milbank, a graduate of Yale University, argued in a recent column on immigration:

This is not merely about a fresh labor supply but about the fresh blood needed to cure what ails us. To benefit from such a transfusion, we not only need to welcome more immigrants but also to adopt pieces of their culture lacking in our own — just as we have done with other (mostly European) cultures for centuries.

Note the biological, almost racial metaphor. We need new blood, literally; there’s something wrong with ours. His concern—and he is typical of the punditocracy—is not with bringing American practice closer to American principles or with assimilating millions of new immigrants. His concern is to change over to the newcomers’ standards and thereby create a new, different, and better America. It is a move away from the principles of 1776 in the direction of “progress.”

Nowadays many Americans are embarrassed to be patriotic. To be sure, this isn’t true across the board, and Americans are more likely to be patriotic than others. But the percentage is declining. The New York Times reports that 78 percent “of the older generation consider their American identity to be extremely important. That drops to 70 percent for baby boomers (50 to 68 years), 60 percent of Generation X’ers (34 to 49 years), and only 45 percent of young adults define themselves this way.”

The cofounder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, an immigrant to America who attended Harvard, renounced his U.S. citizenship before the company went public in order to save a fortune in taxes. Many were outraged. But where would Mr. Saverin have learned to love America and that he might owe it something?

To be sure, assimilation still happens, even if it is more difficult than it was in the age of proud Americanism that Quincy Adams described. Statistics show that immigrants are learning English and becoming citizens. But then it is time to ask: to what are immigrants assimilating? As a study from the Hudson Institute notes, immigrants, “even those who earn U.S. citizenship — have far less attachment to their new home than native-born Americans. Among the findings are that native-born citizens are more likely to view the U.S. as ‘better’ than other countries, more likely to see English as central to the American experience, and more likely to see the U.S. Constitution as a higher legal authority than international law.”

It is perhaps all the more remarkable that a significant proportion of immigrants, 44 percent, said they think the United States is “better” than other nations. But if a majority disagrees, what kind of Americans will they become? Why is Dana Milbank so certain that the changes they bring will be improvements? It might be that immigrants come here to work, in the classic fashion of immigrants. But what about their children? Are we assimilating them into the classic American values of thrift, hard work, and cooperation in civil society? Are we teaching them that America is a special nation, worthy of special respect? Absent such a belief, is it possible to assimilate large numbers of people?

Even in the colonial era, and later the Founding era, immigration was a perennial concern. People worried about the changes brought from afar. In the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin believed too many Germans were moving to Pennsylvania. In time, he feared, their foreign traditions would undermine English liberty. Perhaps he regarded the new federal Constitution as an improvement in that regard. It would make assimilation more necessary by subverting potential lines of ethnic patronage. In the 1780s, Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar concern. “They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth.” Immigrants bring foreign ideas, customs, and manners with them.

If one thinks, as Jefferson and the rest of the Founders did, that American government is good, and that American principles are good, then it makes sense to ponder whether mass migration into America might, in time, ruin America. This preoccupation is all the more reasonable given that our elites begin to embrace a post-national ideal.

Looking forward to newcomers’ overwhelming the votes of the dominant faction of people born and raised here, which seems to be Milbank’s goal, has a political-science version: Ruy Teixeira’s popular “Emerging Democratic Majority” thesis. Political consultants of a certain stripe go in for this, believing that as America becomes a “majority minority” nation, whatever that paradoxical formulation means, it will wreck the Republican Party. Hence they have little interest in reducing illegal immigration. They regard it as bigoted to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, or even between legal and illegal residents in the distribution of charity.

That is, or can be, defended as a principled position; but it also happens to be politically convenient, and such politics seldom end well. Progressives assume they will remain in charge, and they believe that past “progress” is locked in by the cunning of history. But their confidence seems misplaced. Earlier this year in an election in Minnesota, Phyllis Kahn, a member of the Progressive establishment, lost to Muhamud Noor, who was pushed over the top by Somali immigrant voters. If that is a sign of things to come, Progressives may come to regret the Teixeira strategy.

Blood and Soil

Modern immigration policy is also shaped by our understanding—I would argue, our misunderstanding—of the Fourteenth Amendment. It states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” For over a century, since the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), that language has been understood to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, except for the children of diplomats, is a U.S. citizen.

Especially in an age of regular and easy travel, it makes little sense to say that anyone whose mother happens to be passing through the United States when he is born is an American citizen. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” might be interpreted as subject to the full jurisdiction thereof. (That is the case that Justices Fuller and Harlan made in their dissent in 1898.) And if we have a living constitution, it’s reasonable to reinterpret the Court’s majority decision. (Recall it is the same Court that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson; indeed there might be a connection: to make soil, or location at birth, fundamental to citizenship is no less arbitrary than making race segregation in railroads a government mandate.)

So long as anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, it will make it harder for “we the people” to decide whom we wish to join us as fellow citizens. Creating new citizens based upon mutual consent between a new, would-be citizen and current citizens is better—it would be an extension of the principles of 1776. Personally, I hope that we are generous in making fellow citizens, but we ought in principle to have a say in the matter. The Court has never decided whether people here illegally are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Drawing that line might be a good start.

Let me close with a few words about immigration from the United States’ neighbors to the south. Americans of Mexican descent are rapidly becoming the largest single group in the United States. “Between 1990 and 2000 the number of people who reported Mexican ancestry nearly doubled in size.”

Is Mexican immigration different? There are several ways it might be.

First, because Mexico and the United States share a border, having a bi-national family across that divide is not only commonplace, but something that was impossible for the previous large immigrant groups (Germans, for example).

Secondly, this increase has taken place rapidly, without the long, slow accumulation that allowed German, Irish and other such newcomers to assimilate.

Thirdly, it takes place in an age that permits the dual citizenship that was anathema to earlier generations of Americans, in an age when we have a fundamentally different state than we did before, and it concerns new arrivals from a polity with a historical claim on the American West.

On a recent visit to California, the President of Mexico, quite reasonably, expressed his concern about how Mexicans are treated in the United States. And he called California “the other Mexico.” Given Mexico’s historical claim to the area, if there is a sufficiently high percentage of Californians who view themselves as ethnic Mexicans, or perhaps even if they are assimilated into an “Hispanic” identity, there could arise a foreign policy question akin to that of German nationals in the Sudetenland in the 1930s or Russians in Ukraine today. It sounds farfetched, to be sure; and if we assimilate these immigrants to think of themselves primarily as Americans, this scenario will go by the wayside. But are we doing that?

America has been a powerful assimilator and may continue to be so. These worries, as I say, may be overdrawn. Perhaps the underlying culture of assimilation is too firmly entrenched to be subverted and will somehow be accommodated to our new national realities. Then, too, perhaps intermarriage will make a mockery of today’s ethnic/racial classifications. Perhaps, and God forbid, there will arrive some tragic historical event that brings our trans-nationals back home in their aspirations.

But on the other hand, perhaps we have a very serious problem on our hands—one we can only solve if we realize how serious it is.

[1] Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education (The Free Press, 1991), pp. 9-10.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 02, 2014 at 12:55:16 pm

The political elite (both parties) as well as academia, MSM and much of business all want to diminish nation-states and elevate what is called the "global community". I for one, am still a nationalist (in the good sense of the term: patriot). You would think the "brain-iacs" in academia and political philosophy would know that larger the political entity, the less well governed it is and the less the individual has a say in his personal destiny. No, a world without countries, without borders is what the Elites want. Good luck with that. I want nothing of it.

read full comment
Image of GSR
GSR
on October 02, 2014 at 15:08:45 pm

In the hand-wringing over the assimilation of immigrants, what is often overlooked is the assimilation of their children. Historically, first-generation immigrants have struggled to become American except for the few who strongly identified with American values to begin with. However their children and subsequent generations have no such trouble. They speak fluent English even as their immigrant parents struggle with the language and their value system and culture is much more American than their immigrant parents.

You correctly identify the instinctive xenophobia that underlies the immigration "problem". For most people, immigrants are anonymous strangers who speak with an accent and drive taxis or serve food or work as laborers. It is only when we see them as people and get to know them that the barriers to acceptance come down. They are much more like us than many will admit.

Mexico presents a special problem, but much of it would go away if Mexico had more freedom and security, less corruption and a vibrant economy.

read full comment
Image of Lauren R.
Lauren R.
on October 02, 2014 at 18:51:19 pm

What nonsense. Let me guess, you're an immigration attorney who makes a living off the racket known as "immigration". Let me educate you. Do you know what sovereignty means? Who is supposed to be sovereign in the USA? The people, that's who. The vast majority of Americans want illegal immigrants deported and LEGAL immigration reduced. Why? A multitude of reasons - economic and cultural, national security and health reasons among them. Get a clue honey.

read full comment
Image of Nessus
Nessus
on October 02, 2014 at 20:06:34 pm

Really - so everything is conveniently reduced to xenophobia! Perhaps, you read a little more into this essay than the author intended.
Aw, what the heck, let's just blame ourselves anyway. It seems to be the fashionable thing to do, nowadays.

Is it xenophobic to be concerned when a group like La Raza attempts to lay claim to much of the Southwest?
Is it an example of 2nd generation assimilation when immigrant middle / high school students in the "other Mexico" compel, via obnoxious demonstrations, native citizens to discontinue wearing tee shirts with American flags; is it xenophobic to expect that even 1st generation immigrants will attempt to learn our language. Actually, I think it is racist to not so insist. If my Sicilian serf ancestors were both expected to, and did, learn the language, what does it say about those who insist that those newly arrived to our shores need not do so or can not do so. Some wise fellow coined the term "bigotry of low expectations" - Spot -on!!!!

If you wish to see how it all ends up - take a look at Britain and France, among others,and see just how well their "non-xenophobic" practices have worked with Muslim populations. Even here in the States we are already see calls for Sharia law. Goodness gracious, my grandparents would have been appalled to utter such a sentiment. They came here to get away from the "old ways." Regrettably, that is no longer the case. Now we have the elites encouraging immigrants to keep their old ways - after all, the nation state is SO OVER!!!!! and the US is such a miscreant nation.
Call it xenophobia - I call it love not just of one's own but of one rather fine and noble traditions (not perfect but still far nobler than the places these folks fled).

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 02, 2014 at 20:50:04 pm

Then again, let's put it in simpler everyday terms.
It is a matter of common courtesy. If invited into the home of another, it would be rather unseemly of me to immediately sit in the owners $2,000 custom orthopedic recliner, to grab the remote and switch the channel on the TV. Correspondingly, it would be in bad taste for my wife to begin to "instruct" the homeowner in the "proper" drapes, cabinetry and color palate for the home.
As an uninvited "guest", it would be doubly so, would it not?
As a young lad growing up in NYC, I observed what is now a quaint custom. Whenever, one would visit a neighbor, acquaintance, stranger, one would always stop off at the neighborhood bakery and purchase cake, donuts, pastries, etc. This was an expectation - you are a guest, show it - be gracious and thankful for the invite! Regrettably, this does not appear to be an operating principle for many today.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 02, 2014 at 20:55:29 pm

This is a thoughtful, non-cliche-burdened essay. Yet I think it has some problems.

1. The author acknowledges that the country was made by settlers (colonists), yet he uses the tired, Madison-Avenue-style phrase "nation of immigrants." An excellent rejoinder is the following by John O'Sullivan in a review of Samuel Huntington's book _Who Are We?_:

"Huntington punctures several comforting national myths dear to both liberals and conservatives but false and sometimes destructive in their current implications. He points out, for instance, that the U.S. is not 'a nation of immigrants.' It is a nation that was founded by settlers—who are very different from immigrants in that they establish a new polity rather than arrive in an existing one—and that has been occupied since by the descendants of those settlers and of immigrants who came later but who assimilated into the American nation. Americans therefore are under no moral obligation to accept anyone who wishes to immigrate on the spurious grounds that everyone is essentially an immigrant. Americans own America, so to speak, and may admit or refuse entry to outsiders on whatever grounds they think fit."

2. Then there’s the matter of the country’s distinctive and essential character. No, it’s not that being a citizen means you’ve bought into the Constitution. (“Hence, the day someone becomes an American citizen, he is American in the essential sense of the term.”) If that was ever realistic, it isn’t today.

In fact, this was a country made by a specific people, and that’s what makes it what it is. This was expressed by Colorado Congressman William Vaile in 1924, presumably during the debates over the immigration restriction law passed that year:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”

3. Author Samuelson takes a swing by Emma Lazarus and, by implication, the famous statue, whose **actual** title is “Liberty Enlightening the World.” But the statue has nothing to do with immigration. (Samuelson doesn’t say that it does, but the implication is probably there, at least for most readers.)

4. In what sense does Mexico have an historical claim to California? It was part of Mexico between the end of the Mexican War for Independence (1821) and the Mexican-American War (1846 – 1848), fewer than 30 years. It’s been part of the United States for 166 years. (And reading Robert Kaplan’s account in the Atlantic comparing the “twin cities” of Nogales, Mexico and Nogales, Arizona makes clear that Mexican society has done little with land compared to what American society has done with identical, adjacent land.)

5. Samuelson seems confident that assimilation is happening, while being uncertain that it’s assimilation to anything desirable. But it seems clear to me that there’s a substantial fraction of newcomers for which immigration isn’t happening; if so, this is highly problematic. I take as evidence the proliferation of Spanish throughout American life: If assimilation were happening, would there be increasing numbers of radio stations broadcasting in Spanish? Doesn’t this, instead, mark the colonization of increasing swaths of our country by people who aren’t about to learn our language?

Similarly, the omnipresent labeling of consumer items (especially in grocery stores) with Spanish parallel to the English suggests a lack of assimilation. (Of course, this may arise mostly in the fecklessness of companies who are just going for more customers without considering that the society they’re helping transform us into won’t be very hospitable to capitalism.)
.

read full comment
Image of Paul137
Paul137
on October 02, 2014 at 21:20:17 pm

Your tee-shirt example should be a potent one for those who can be made aware of it.

Although the people who really need scourging on this are the school administrators, more so than the obnoxious Mexican-descent (or immigrant) students.

Then again, as I recall, those administrators are themselves Hispanic, thus reinforcing the thesis that tribalism is trumping assimilation.

read full comment
Image of Paul137
Paul137
on October 02, 2014 at 21:33:22 pm

Correction to my #5 above. It should be "But it seems clear to me that there’s a substantial fraction of newcomers for which assimilation isn’t happening."

"Assimilation," not "immigration"!

(Actually, this would be a good slogan, going forward ...)

read full comment
Image of Paul137
Paul137
on October 02, 2014 at 23:22:24 pm

Imagine John Adams shock if he visited his Quincy home today and found the majority of newcomers speak Mandarin! And I venture to guess have their very own EBT cards for their anchor babies!

read full comment
Image of Mary
Mary
on October 03, 2014 at 07:54:34 am

Is it the USA anymore? If people have nothing in common, there is no country(nation). I have La Raza bumper stickered cars and Muslim women in burqas (no exaggeration) on my block, let alone my neighborhood, let alone my hometown.

The open borders elites should be shunned, ridiculed and physically made to live with their beloved "newcomers". Go to hell, you open borders type.

read full comment
Image of Nessus
Nessus
on October 03, 2014 at 11:35:27 am

Paul:

Absolutely spot-on.

We are a nation of SETTLERS - not one of immigrants - and it is that which has made all the difference.
Simply put - post founding all who entered and were WELCOMING of the American way BECAME settlers in the same sense as Lincoln is quoted as speaking in the above essay. It is a creed rather than a bloodline that defines this nation. Those who seek to diminish this creedal foundation do so by separating us into small, rent-seeking (demanding?) factions, each of which is entitled to a special place as is the heritage that they so willingly ABANDONED. Do not presume to think that the fact of abandonment gives you any claim upon our heritage.

As for xenophobia, as i have said before: In the past immigrants were as welcomed AS THEY WERE WELCOMING of the traditions of their new country. simple as that!!!!!! In other words, my grandparents thought of themselves as Americans - not Italian-Americans.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 03, 2014 at 15:29:46 pm

Since the thrust of this essay seems intended to relate some of the experiences (and results) of the past to expectations of,or desires for, the future, a critique of the terminologies used may be helpful in understanding that what appears to us as a "problem" can be seen as a temporary event in the spectrum of history.

In the early part of the essay we encounter the reification of "government" as an entity which does things, rather than an instrumentality through which people do things. That seems to assume that there is a separate and distinct actor other than the human interactions in the shaping of the cultures which make up a society. If that assumption is incorrect, then some of the past experience may be misunderstood, or need clarification.

There may also be a misunderstanding in the use of the term "assimilation," which is essentially a form of absorption, whether nutritive or cultural. There has been a tendency to assume that there has been some form of basic "American" culture that is to be absorbed by those migrating into its contacts. That assumption is subject to examination, which requires a brief prologue.

Seen as a very over-simplified panorama, cultures are formed from sufficiencies of commonalities of individual motivations*; social orders are in turn formed from aggregations of sufficient commonalities of cultures; and, civilizations form from aggregations of social orders. "Nations" are one of the concepts of social orders.
___
* Of course, individual motivations are formed and incubated in cultures, varying slightly in individual characteristics over periods of time – a form of cultural self perpetuation.

Migrations, individual and mass, are propelled by individual motivations. In their variances they include escape and attainment. Those into and within (do not ignore the effects of the internal migrations) the early history of the United States did result in peoples of one particular culture absorbing the culture of other people. There were predominant cultures, some of them regional, some of them ethnic. The author states:

"Assimilating all Europeans to a common identity was not so simple; but it did, in time, happen."

There is another way to view what "did in time happen." Those Europeans (and some others) identified sufficient commonality in their individual motivations to form cultures which have sufficient commonality to form social orders. But factual examination of those cultures does not support a determination of homogeneity or cultural singularity. What we can find are absorptions of differing cultures (based on different sources of individual motivations) from and into other cultures, more of a "blending" than a one-way assimilation; those case of a predominant culture resulting in cross- assimilation.

Perhaps we are better understood, not as a "Nation of Immigrants" but as a nation of blended cultures [no, not a "mosaic'] created by internal and incoming migrations. If understood in that fashion, we may better understand the "problem" the author signals as a matter of the difficulties in identifying the commonalities of the individual motivations of the migrants with those of the current occupants. That should cause us to consider the factors that formed the individual motivations of those migrants, if commonality is to be found.

The "responsibility" is not "to assimilate," but to find sufficient commonalities.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, in the cultures that comprise our own social order, we are observing developments of serious distinctions in individual motivations (see, "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray). We may wonder whether there is a singular or predominant American culture to be absorbed for purposes of assimilation; or, whether we have reached the point of such an extensive "blending" of the ingredients in the make up our social order, that the additional ingredients will only be "suspended" in the mix and not absorbed.

It would require a book, not an essay, to encompass the vast migrations that have been and are occurring throughout the world; the internal migrations (urbanization) of China; the movements in and out of the populations of India; the declining populations of Russia, Central and Southern Europe; as well as the shifts in ethnic composition of North America, which may well become predominantly Asian in the origins of its future populations. Seen in that light, we may get a broader view from the scholarship of Carroll Quigley (1910 – 1977).

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on October 03, 2014 at 18:47:37 pm

Richard:

Your approach again reminds us that it is "individual" motivations (yes, they may be unduly influenced by other factors) are at issue here.
Yet, regardless of the terminology, it must still be recognized that the "individual" (perhaps, given todays preference to divide everyone into distinct ethnic groups, Madisonian factions may be a better term) preferences / motivations are now somewhat more discordant than was previously the case. Moreover, whereas the "collective" motivation of days past no longer obtains. with that comes a loss of the sense of, in Peter Lawler's terms, "place" or "home."
Now while it is true that one may ultimately ascribe responsibility to "individual motivation" (one always does have a choice), it may be somewhat misleading in that it fails to account for the rather significant influence of "group identity" politics / posturing.
Concomitant upon a loss of "home" comes an emptiness, a withdrawal from active engagement and a further acquiescence to the zeitgeist. In some measure, this is what is at issue here: the recognition by a people (self styled, self identifying) that the balance has been tipped beyond a point where there is any mutual recognition of commonalities sufficiently broad to encompass the individual actors / motivators.

As I said above, I do not invite myself into another's home and re-order the furnishings or demand that some "entity" i.e. government ( a motley crew of individual motivators) so re-order the furnishings to accommodate my palate / design preferences. It is unseemly - and folks simply do not react well to it - in short they have no motivation to do so and a thousand reasons not to.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 03, 2014 at 21:50:00 pm

Gabe,

From your comment it appears you are observing the fragmentation (or its beginning) of our social order. But the sense of your comment seems to imply that the symptoms of that fragmentation (the indicators) might be regarded as the causes.

Esoteric analogies are the refuge of stagnant thinking; but one come to mind: the eutectoid as an alloy which has a lower melting point than its components. Perhaps we are there. The cultures here alloyed may have formed a eutectic.

Check the core element of fire sprinkler systems, which have critical melt temperatures.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on October 04, 2014 at 11:48:06 am

Richard:

Fair enough - but i think at root what I am saying is this (although I left it unstated) that cultures"whatever they may be) are not quite so strong as we may wish them to be - pushed / pulled enough they may break asunder.
Question: Are cultures inherently unstable without some overarching externality to keep them in place. An example or two: Saddam Hussein - the strongman model; American traditions - the "mythical model";
What is it that so moderates / modulates the vast number of individual "motivations" such that they remain part of a somewhat cohesive whole or "place?" In Adam Smith's terms, perhaps, the invisible hand of the cultural marketplace. Can we then ask, if that "hand" is still likely to be effective when it is no longer invisible but is daily exposed / denied / denigrated by "factions" seeking to control that same "hand."

While ignorance may be bliss - it is more certain that a little bit of knowledge may be deleterious - not just to the individual but to a culture and it's sustaining myths.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 04, 2014 at 14:39:33 pm

Gabe,

Because we seem to be drifting somewhat away from the original thread, here is my email contact if you wish to go further: [email protected]

But, not to dodge your question –

" Are **cultures** inherently unstable without some overarching externality to keep them in place?"

That is a different thread from the fragmentation of **social orders**. However, the answer is "no," unless "externalities" are given some extreme extensive meaning and application.

The examples you cite are social (political) orders, such as the Ba'athist totalitarianism, a secularization of religious absolutism that was supported by a long-established family, clan and tribal culture. The culture remains intact. It continues to support absolutist religious ideology. But the political order has fragmented (though the fragments bear some similarities, but not sufficient commonalities). The "mythical model" example is too indefinite for specific comment.

Perhaps a better grasp of the role of individuality in the stability of our own cultures can be seen in Adam Smith's "A Theory of Moral Sentiments," in which he examines the individual's concept of that individual's individuality (and of the characteristics that make up that individuality) as deriving from an individual's perceptions of other individuals and their characteristics – not least the perceptions of those others of that individual's own characteristics.

That is more a matter of cognition than a mythological cultural "hidden hand."

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on October 28, 2014 at 14:03:45 pm

[…] Read Samuelson’s Article here: http://www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/can-america-remain-a-nation-of-immigrants-in-the-21st-ce… […]

read full comment
Image of Summary: Can America Remain a Nation of Immigrants in the 21st Century? | ImmPolicy
Summary: Can America Remain a Nation of Immigrants in the 21st Century? | ImmPolicy
on October 28, 2014 at 18:21:11 pm
Image of Pete Maughan
Pete Maughan
on November 19, 2014 at 10:52:56 am

[…] is much to agree with in Richard Samuelson’s essay. My disagreement arises from three main sources. First, Samuelson undervalues how important […]

read full comment
Image of Immigration Bolsters American Freedom - iVoter.com | iVoter.com
Immigration Bolsters American Freedom - iVoter.com | iVoter.com
on July 24, 2015 at 20:27:30 pm

Professor Samuelson cites a great many instances from history on the exceptionalism of America and its unique brand of Nationalism. Clearly, as he posits, it is the lure of opportunity for those who work hard that has brought immigrants here since the nation's beginning. But he also cites instances of worries about immigration that have been happening since the founding of our nation. Are these worries any different than those of Aristotle worrying about the "youth of today"? Is there always going to be a conservative segment of the population that bemoans any characteristics of newcomers that are not in line with their own? He cites La Raza as an example of newcomers refusing to assimilate, but their actions seem no different than the actions of immigrants in the 20th century, in terms of simply trying to get equal opportunities and trying to help others from the old country. Can anyone say the Irish and German never assimilated? He also notes that many newcomers take less pride in America than natives. Well what of their children and grandchildren? Is there any reason to suspect they won't be as American as any previous second and third generation Americans? And he buries what may be the most important line: "Then, too, perhaps intermarriage will make a mockery of today’s ethnic/racial classifications." The xenophobic rants from some of the commenters above show that much of the fighting over immigration are more the anger from a culture of "pure" Anglo-Saxons that is a dying breed as the world assimilates into one brown culture. That appears to be more in line with Professor Samuelson's concerns that immigrants might "ruin" America.

read full comment
Image of Kimberly D
Kimberly D
on October 18, 2015 at 20:51:40 pm

I agree, but most liberals and political leaders want to bring in immigrants by the millions, as if their is no tomorrow.

read full comment
Image of Eric P.
Eric P.
on January 08, 2016 at 10:22:46 am

[…] Nation of Immigrants in the 21st Century?” Online Library of Law and Liberty, October 2, 2014, http://www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/can-america-remain-a-nation-of-immigrants-in-the-21st-ce… (accessed July 5, […]

read full comment
Image of Patriotic Assimilation Is an Indispensable Condition in a Land of Immigrants « The United Voice of America
Patriotic Assimilation Is an Indispensable Condition in a Land of Immigrants « The United Voice of America
on July 09, 2017 at 03:12:12 am

[…] a Nation of Immigrants in the 21st Century?” Online Library of Law and Liberty, October 2, 2014, http://www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/can-america-remain-a-nation-of-immigrants-in-the-21st-ce… (accessed July 5, […]

read full comment
Image of Patriotic Assimilation Is an Indispensable Condition in a Land of Immigrants | The Baltic Post
Patriotic Assimilation Is an Indispensable Condition in a Land of Immigrants | The Baltic Post

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.