During the heyday of legal immigration, the goal was to convert foreigners into Americans. These newcomers were to exchange their old customs for our democratic ideals. They were to enter a melting pot where in the end they would be indistinguishable from their neighbors.
At the moment, we are enduring the heyday of illegal immigration. The goal nowadays is to resist assimilation. Newcomers, who begin by breaking our laws, are encouraged to retain their original cultures. By remaining different, they supposedly add an element of diversity from which we all benefit.
I, however, am not so sure. The refugees who are flooding our southern border are said to be fleeing the violence and disorder of their Central American homelands. They are depicted as peace loving people who only want to protect their children.
Nonetheless, if their countries of origin are such vile places, why would we expect only put-upon good guys to leave them. Wouldn’t the bad guys join their caravans—perhaps in greater numbers? If their prey were leaving, were they to stay behind how would they support themselves?
Then, when these folks arrived, where would they live? For the most part, unable to speak English and bereft of industrial skills, wouldn’t they huddle together in homogeneous neighborhoods? Wouldn’t this tendency be enhanced by their illegal status?
In other words, the more refugees the less likely they are to interact with American citizens. Although they came to the United States for a better life, they would thereby reinforce the culture that kept them in poverty.
For America to remain America, our way of life cannot be overwhelmed by non-democratic traditions. This is the point of a melting pot. It is meant to allow individuals who do not possess the talents and attitudes necessary for self-governance to obtain them.
This can only occur when the numbers involved are small enough so that the newcomers interact with those already here. An ability to assimilate is also correlated with how similar the culture of the immigrants is the American way of life. Peasants, for instance, have a more difficult time adapting than city dwellers.
The experience of previous groups is instructive. Consider the contrasting histories of the Jews and Italians. The two came to the United States at about the same time, but assimilated at different rates. This was not because of their biology, but their cultures.
The Jews were urbanites who participated in a market economy when still in Europe. They came to America intending to stay and take advantage of its opportunities. To this end, they embraced the English language and free schooling. In short order, they engaged in upward mobility, despite their religious differences.
The Italians took longer to fit in. Most were peasants who were unfamiliar with urban life. They did not adopt English or a secular education. Indeed, many intended to return to the homeland with which the still identified. It therefore took them several generations to become Americanized.
Hispanics are no different. Thus, the Cubans have adjusted to the U.S. much more quickly than, let is say, Hondurans. Because so many of the former were middle class, they knew how to take advantage of a market economy. The latter did not and so remain outsiders.
By defending our borders and keeping the quantity of legal immigrants in check, we are not discriminating because of race. Quite the contrary, we are doing everyone a favor. We are facilitating assimilation such that we continue to be a land of opportunity where newcomers are able to obtain the advantages of a free and prosperous nation.
First, if we refuse to defend our laws, we invite immigrants to do the same. By looking the other way at the border or instituting sanctuary cities at home, we are sending the message that democracy is pliable. This is no way to teach people who come from despotic societies how to participate in self-rule.
Second, by praising diversity and encouraging people to live in ethnic enclaves, we slow the process of learning about others and tolerating differences. Especially when the number of migrants is huge, this promotes a separateness that becomes divisive.
If people deserve respect, regardless of where they come from, we must adopt strategies that provide a chance to learn how to respect differences. Likewise, if democracy is worthy of preserving, we must protect its foundation. These ends are possible only if we support the melting pot ideal. Anarchy breeds anarchy, which ultimately hurts us all.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment