A
recent book by Wall Street Journal editor
Jason Riley describes an editorial cartoon
depicting “a hulking, exhausted new arrival to America’s shores. ... a small mob greets the man, each
individual representing a voice in the raucous
immigration debate.
A contractor says ‘He gives me cheap
labor.’ A workman says, ‘He cheapens my
labor.’ A health officer says, ‘He brings
disease.’ A citizen calls him ‘a menace.’”
The
year: 1903.
The
immigration debate has not changed much since
then. Irish,
Italian and East European immigrants 125 years ago
were mostly uneducated, settled where crime and
violence ran rampant, took low-skilled,
back-breaking jobs, and were considered by many
Americans to be inferior, disease-ridden drunkards
and certainly of a race that could never
assimilate into real Americans.
They
were legal immigrants, though it didn’t take
much to be legal back then, and the standard was
one most illegal immigrants could easily meet
today.
For
instance, my great grandfather came to America
in 1883, in a wave of Germans arriving at a rate
exceeding that of Mexican immigrants today.
He needed only to show up on our shores, be
vouched for by someone in the United States holding a job, and be free
from any diseases (including “lunacy”).
Since he wasn’t Chinese (who were
banned), he became one of the 98 percent of
arrivals entering unmolested.
And
in just a few generations, the descendents of
those once derided as undesirable would rise to
positions of power and influence in government,
business, and society.
An
honest look at documents
from a century ago demonstrates that many of
the local concerns expressed about behaviors today
– boarding houses, trash, drinking – were
associated with new immigrants back then, as well.
But
the world has changed.
What was just barely tolerable in 1898’s
urban environment is understandably unacceptable
in a 2008 suburban neighborhood.
And
the challenges of assimilation are more complex.
Today’s immigrant faces daunting legal
and financial systems and an economic system
increasingly dependent on high technology and
technical skills. Further,
decades of policies emphasizing our differences
and fostering multiculturalism now seem to have
had the effect of discouraging exactly the kind of
citizenship that strengthens our national bonds
and makes new immigrants full partners in American
society.
When
our forebears arrived, they insisted their
children learn English.
Today, schools offer bilingual education,
leaving today’s children at a severe
disadvantage.
Those
newcomers of old scrambled to become American
citizens. Today,
they have the option of dual citizenship, with
concomitant dual loyalties.
It
makes sense to ask an important question:
Are we, effectively, creating a “Press
One for English” culture that devalues
Americanization?
In
1915, a broad group of civic leaders – from
business and unions to the Daughters of the
American Revolution and the Catholic Church –
formed the National Americanization Committee (NAC).
The committee’s concerns ranged from the
state of American citizenship, to the massive
influx of immigrants, to political corruption.
Through
the NAC, liberals and conservatives, they forged a
compact on both sides:
Immigrants were expected to learn English
and become American.
But immigrants were also given help in
doing that. The
group refused to leave immigrants to their own
devices and focused on integrating them into
American society.
It
sounds a lot like something former Housing and
Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros is
working on. According
to Cisneros, his group, Our Pledge, has the same
dual focus, as he puts it:
“to bring the message of the importance
of Americanization to the immigrants as well as to
the larger society, “and to “reach out through
a network of affiliates, allies, and church groups
to bring an Americanization theme on top of the
legalization and social services now being
offered.”
In
return, Cisneros expects a commitment from
immigrants – to become fluent in English and
become a citizen, become part of the financial
system through financial literacy and home
ownership, and to be personally involved in their
children’s education.
The
“immigration wars” are old, but should be
expected in a nation founded on the ideas of
freedom rather than a common ethnicity, and in
which – as Ronald Reagan put it – “anyone
from any corner of the world can come to America
and be an American.”
Perhaps
the strategy for a cease-fire is just as old.
--
August 4, 2008
|