We Are a Nation of Immigrants
One segment
of society says, “We are all descendants of immigrants; we have always welcomed
them.” There is a lot of truth to this perspective. One can find strong evidence
to substantiate that argument. From the beginning, we have indeed been a nation
that welcomes immigrants.
· Before
the Constitution was written, “The United States had already earned a
reputation as an immigrant haven…”[i]
Later, an understanding of the U.S. as being a welcoming country was being used
in the 1780s.[ii]
· The
phrase, e pluribus unum, “out of many
one,” made its first appearance on the back of the $5.00 gold coin, first
minted in 1795. They are the only words on the front of the great seal of the United States.
· The often quoted “The New Colossus,” by Emma Lazarus, attached to
the Statue of Liberty in the late 1800s, a century later, articulates that sentiment,
"…Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I
lift my lamp beside the golden door!"[iii]
In the beginning, our country was, indeed, a welcoming place for immigrants
of White European Protestant ancestry. Historically, it has represented one of the
basic core values of who we are as a nation. How are we doing today?
Later, the enduring “melting pot”, yet no longer seen as accurate metaphor, was first used in 1908,
by a British writer Israel Zangwill. His stage play entitled, The Melting Pot, sparked its adoption
as a metaphor for America. Interestingly, both ends of this continuum refer to
this metaphor as being the reasoning for their argument. More about the
metaphor later.
Significant Is: Who Are Not Included
The reality
is that from the very beginning there were significant numbers of people who
were not included in the “Melting Pot.” It seems to me that this layer is one
of the most pivotal in the debate about immigration. In 1964, Glazer and
Moynihan, in their groundbreaking work, Beyond
the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New
York, challenged this metaphor. "As early as 1882, the Chinese were
excluded, to say nothing of women, Native- or African-Americans, or other
non-European immigrants".[iv]
Even though outdated, the metaphor still persists.
Beyond New
York, there are other examples of the lack of inclusion. These include wars
fought to drive Mexico out of the Southwest, broken treaties and forced
dislocation of Native Americans, and treatment of the Japanese during WWII. Each
of these peoples, and others, were historically excluded, to one degree or
other from the “melting pot.” Inclusion is improving (with enforcement), and to
a lesser degree attitudes are improving for those Moynihan cites. However, we
have a long way to go.
When Glazer
and Moynihan published their book in 1964, the Reform Act was not yet in force.
Since its enactment, however, the issue has become considerably more acute for
us today. Countless cultures and subcultures, hundreds of languages, scores of
non-Christian religions, ideologies both conventional and “alternative,” have
been added to our nation. Almost 37% of our population is now included in those
whom Glazer and Moynihan identified as being excluded from the Melting Pot. All
these diverse peoples, most of whom live here legally, have already changed the
traditional cultural map of America, and will continue to do so. They are here;
they are not going away; and they are most often our most loyal Americans. They
know from whence they have come. Can our nation ever get “Beyond the Melting Pot”?
You can argue
that, at one point only a few decades ago, our culture was at the same time
becoming homogeneous and heterogeneous (or what I call complex culture) in
nature. Several alternative metaphors have been proposed: a salad bowl, a
stew, a mosaic, where each new addition, lends its own flavor to the blend,
texture or color to the whole, while keeping its own identity. However, no one
metaphor has yet captured the full extent of our reality.
There are
those who would divide us. Would our energies and resources not be better
allocated focusing our energies on reuniting behind “e pluribus unum,” and start attempting a new approach in which everyone
is included? We are desperately in need of leadership that would lead us toward
that end.
So far, in
this post, we have only focused on the 37% people of color who are here
legally. We do need to address the issues of the border and the undocumented,
but there is much more to it than that, and needs more time and space. At this writing, the flow at the border is only a bit more than those going back home.
National security and drug trafficking are still an issue. Given the broad
spectrum of strongly-held ideological opinions on the subject, it seems that no
wide-ranging solution will fully satisfy anyone. However, it appears that the
former cannot truly begin, until the latter is dealt with in a comprehensive
manner. The Senate passed a bi-partisan bill several years ago that the House
Leadership never allowed to see the light of day. Here we are.
I am an anthropologist. However, the issues at hand are many layered, touch on so many fields of study, and elicit numerous ideological and personal emotional responses. Any attempt on my part to do more than offer a personal opinion is way beyond my pay grade.
The final part of this series will include some of my observations, comments about immigration policy, and an invitation to you, the reader, to take part in a brainstorming session about what can be done+.
The final part of this series will include some of my observations, comments about immigration policy, and an invitation to you, the reader, to take part in a brainstorming session about what can be done+.
