Opinion
We Are a Nation of Immigrants
By Irwin Horowitz, 8-10-07
 |
|
 | |
|
“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!”
The above inscription, located on a bronze plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, is a testament to the essence of our national identity. We who were born here are all descendants of peoples who came to this land from a foreign shore. For decades, it greeted those who left behind all that they knew to start a new, hopefully better life here in the United States.
Today, it seems that a certain segment of our society would like to include the following disclaimer to those magical words:
“Unless your skin is brown,
You speak a foreign language,
You pray to some other god or gods, or
You use goods and services I’m paying for!”
Every week, I read letters in my local paper (the Idaho Statesman) from readers who seem more intent on expressing the sentiments in the disclaimer than on the original ideals expressed on that plaque. Indeed, the level of vitriol hurled by those authors towards non-Americans is disgusting. However, it is not unexpected. These arguments have been political fodder in our society for nearly two centuries.
In the mid-19th century, the hatred was aimed primarily towards the Irish. They were Catholic. They answered to Rome. They were hostile to American “values.” The infamous “Know-nothing” movement had its basis in this anti-Irish backlash. By the late-19th and early-20th century, the anti-immigration forces were primarily focused on new arrivals coming from eastern and southern Europe, particularly those of Catholic or Jewish descent. In the mid-1930s, Jews fleeing the persecution from Nazi Germany were routinely denied admission to this country.
My mother’s parents emigrated here from present-day Hungary, my father’s grandparents from Russia. They all passed through Ellis Island in the early parts of the last century. They all were greeted by the majesty of Lady Liberty and knew, deep down in their hearts, that they made the right decision to leave their old lives behind and seek out a new, fresh start thousands of miles away from all that they knew. Their lives here weren’t particularly easy, but those lives were a vast improvement on the ones they shed in coming to America.
They settled in New York. They raised families, held a variety of jobs, and supported various causes (one of my great-grandfathers was deeply involved in a variety of pro-union organizations). Their children had lives that were sometimes better, sometimes worse than their own. Over the century that has transpired, however, there has been a marked improvement in the quality of life enjoyed by their progeny.
Today’s version of my ancestors are those fleeing economic displacement, ethnic and religious persecution or political exile from lands which don’t provide their citizens with the same rights we enjoy here in the United States. Who is to say what their progeny can accomplish in a few generations of living their American Dream? It is most definitely not those scribes we read in our daily papers who routinely disparage the contributions these new arrivals make to our society.
I have always been proud to be a citizen of the land of the free and the home of the brave. However, whenever I read those letters, I am embarrassed to consider that those sentiments are expressed by fellow citizens who seem to prefer to live in the “land of the sheep, and the home of the cowards.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
You are indeed correct about the history of Xenophobia among some in America. However, it was generally confined to urban areas in the East.
Additionally, many more immigrants today seem to have motives that are quite different from my father's, or the Irish, the Hungarians, the Italians, and the Chinese.
What binds together a nation of immigrants? A common language. My father started learning English before he cam to this country-legally. I am prouf od my father's home country and stay in close touch with my relatives.
Threre is no other country in the world where one could go and demand public services in my own native language-especially after coming illegally.
I don't blame anyone for trying to improve their families lives..and I understand the labor cost built into goods and services.
Don't blame people for being upset about a tidal change in how immigrants assimilate-or as things are today illegal immigrants going out of one's way to NOT assimilate.
Further the US Congress is responsible for employers ability to get awat with using illegal immigrant labor on the cheap-the source of your $5 Hors D'Oeurves......
This is the real source of many American's rage..don't blame them for not being suckers.
How about a brown skinned man that was born in America and was fluent in both languages, but was deported back to Mexico anyway? He was then "lost" in Mexico for months until Federal agents recovered him.
And his only crime was being born brown.
There is a strong xenophobic streak in America right now. From Sali's comments about Hindus to Debbie Schlussel's constant attacks against Islamolibcommiefascists, the one thing that continually links all of these mouth foamers is the fact that those they rail against are just, well, brown.
Getting rid of illegal aliens will never be a successful strategy until such time as the root cause of their flight from their home country is understood and corrected by the massive weight of American diplomacy. From Mexico's incredible levels of corruption and depressed economy to the flight of Iraqi civilians due to our own heavy handed illegal invasion, there are root causes that need to be addressed.
But it's too hard to talk about those, they aren't easy subjects so using fear as a whip to drive the masses towards xenophobic ends is much easier.
First, 19th century xenophobia was mostly confined to the east because there was no "west" in those days, at least as far as immigration was concerned. I see no difference in today's version affecting all areas of the country than I do prior instances affecting those areas where immigrants settled. As for the issue of assimilation, it was precisely the same at the turn of the 20th century as it is today. People feared these new arrivals simply because they were different...different language, different religion, different culture. We see the same response from today's xenophobics.
I have no doubt that in two or three generations, the descendants of today's immigrants will be just as assimilated into American culture as I am. Perhaps, American culture will even assimilate some of the more positive aspects of the cultures of these immigrants (certainly latin-based cuisine is already immensely popular and their music is gaining as well).
Second, where do you see any reference in my op-ed piece to "illegal" immigration? I make absolutely no such reference. It is you who made some such inference based on your own personal viewpoint. Whether we agree or disagree on this issue, certainly those individuals who LEGALLY immigrate to this country should not be the subject of such abuse as is thrown in their direction. But they are, simply because of the reasons I pointed out at the top of my piece.
If you would like for me to attempt to make a full listing of all of the xenophobes in Congress and in the public eye, then you're a fool.
I'm not here to apologize for Hillary, nor clarify.
I do, however, see Mr. Sali constantly digging a hole to try to get away from his original gaffe. As well, he reflects upon our state, upon our people. I think he makes a lot more difference to this discussion, don't you? He is basically supporting those that stood up and rudely interrupted the Hindu prayer, he is saying that it's ok to treat other people of other religions as less than Christians, and thats not xenophobic?
I pointed out a small list of xenophobic people that are on the front page today and you counter with a Clinton comment? Thats the best you can do? Sali is on the front page around the US and other parts of the Globe over the last few days and you automatically blame ME?
What is wrong with you?
And then you blame me of hypocrisy because I didn't provide a list that included a democrat? Again, what is wrong with you? You admit to being so damn lazy that you won't even look up what Sali said or how the reactions are spreading outwards? And you think I should quote it because you're too lazy? Google it for yourself, I'm not going to appease your lazy ass.
Xenophobia reaches across parties, across classes and it touches every single immigrant, whether illegal or legal. It does so in ways few understand unless they are living the results of the bigotry.
And the first thing you think of is the wife of the Clenis. Good job, you must be so very proud.
I'm not going to get in the middle of your feud with Jay, but here is a link to the Statesman article about Sali's comments, which dealt more with the presence of Rep. Ellison of Minnesota (a practicing Muslim) than the issue of the Hindu prayer in the Senate.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/politics/story/130604.html
As far as my congressidiot is concerned, he is both a dumbass and a xenophobe.
The fact that Indian society sucks for the untouchables and that Islamic countries routinely deny religious pluralism does not diminish from the belief that WE should be more open in embracing the differences in our society rather than emulating these despicable practices.
I encourage you to not only read the Statesman article, but go to the website they reference (in the box labeled "elsewhere") for the original article and read some of the commentary posted there. It is downright frightening to think that there are American citizens who are so filled with hatred and fear of "the other" that they cheered what Sali was saying.
You are correct...Sen. Clinton should have been castigated for those remarks. However, she quickly apologized, claimed it was a bad attempt at humor, and the event happened nearly four years ago. Do you expect Sali to issue an apology or to claim that his statement was a poor attempt at humor? You also give him too much credit on the comparative scale with Sen. Clinton. I would rate him several orders of magnitude smaller than 1 million to one in comparison.
Personally, as an atheist, I don't believe either the House or Senate should begin their sessions with any form of prayer, but if they insist on doing so, I believe that all faiths should get some form of recognition (or at least all faiths that have followers in this country). The actions of those in the gallery is precisely what I was talking about in this article. Sali's comments about Muslims serving in Congress are in the same vein. But of course, I don't need to tell this to you. I appreciate your willingness to call a dumbass a dumbass...even if he is a Republican :-).
(You can see the whole poem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus)
My consolation to the current wave of xenophobia is that this too shall pass; as we built this nation of immigrants, we have gone through these things before.
Thanks for a reason to remember our higher ideals.
Some people, when they know that their position on an issue cannot be supported on grounds of reason or defended as being in the public interest, demonize the other side in order to shut down the debate.
Sorry, Mr. Horowitz, that cheap and sleazy trick may have worked in the past, but Americans have achieved sufficient intellectual maturity that they no longer allow debate on crucial public policies issues to be shut down by those who attempt to engage in intimidation.
"Sustainable immigration policy" is what we all want, we just don't have any agreement about what that might be. What do you mean by it?
I don't find anything "cheap and sleazy" about the original piece; it states a particular point of view forcefully. Your reply, on the other hand is content-free, and simply attacks the author.
I am curious to know the basis of the intellectual position held by those who write letters to the editor condemning the recent wave of immigration? How does it differ from the anti-Irish sentiments expressed in the mid-19th century, the anti-Semitic sentiments of the late-19th and early-20th century, and the anti-Asian sentiments that seem to be expressed throughout this timeframe. In each case, the descendants of those who emigrated became assimilated within two generations. I would be surprised if in two generations the descendants of today's immigrants haven't similarly assimilated into American culture. By which time, those who spew their vitriol will no doubt have moved on to a new target for their hate. It seems to me as though these individuals need some type of "bogeyman" in order to justify their own self-identity.
I also find it strangely ironic that most of the extreme X-tian right now vilifies anti-Semitism (with a few very disturbing exceptions), but have no problem with anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu (or even anti-Mormon) positions. 80 years ago, the forebears of today's conservative X-tian leaders were just as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that mean that by the turn of this century, they will condemn these attitudes and instead just vilify atheists like me?
It is one thing to stand smugly on the side of the angels, morally upright and correct politically, and quite another to think for yourself, educate yourself and arrive at your own conclusions based in objective reality, however painful.
Some of us have heard the official government lies for so long that we have come to accept them like the sheep in "Animal Farm", "two legs bad; four legs good."
To wit: "Diversity is our greatest strength." How so? Is the grass greener, the work day shorter, the environment cleaner and are social tensions between different races reduced? I don't think so.
Diversity for the sake of difference makes no sense whatsoever unless one's goal is further division among Americans, and there is no better example than today's Iraq, Palestine, Cyprus, South Africa, West Africa, parts of India, Western Europe, India-Pakistan, the Balkans, the Philipines,, Cechnya---the list is a long one.
Another lie: "All men are created equal." This refers, of course, to Thomas Jefferson's assertion relating to one's relationship to God and the law; it was not an anthropological statement, but it was the statement of a slave owner. Interestingly enough, John Adams wanted the statement removed from the Declaration of Independence.
How about "We are all immigrants"? That makes as much sense as saying we are all mammals, therefore all mamals should be welcomed without regard to numbers, quality, state of health,
ability to contribute or character. How totally mindless!
Sociobiologists and anthropologists have long known that homogeneous societies are happier, and many, such as Arthur Jensen, have never asserted that there are no substantial differences in peoples. Those who dare to make statements contrary to official government opinion may soon discover that grant money they have been counting on has disappeared.
So-called "diversity" of race, culture and religion has not worked in Europe. In holland 25% of the population wants to leave. For the murdered Pym Fortune and Theo VanGogh it is too late.
Wake up and do a little reading. You who live in the Western states are priviledged. Many of you do not have to live with urban sprawl, 50% of which is caused by immigrants. Your jails and prisons are not filled with illegal aliens, your schools are not over-run, your hospitals and welfare agencies taxed beyond sustainability, and there are no inter-racial tensions.
Diversity is not our greatest strength, but it may well be our Achilles heel. All men, races or cultures are not created equal, and please don't call me an immigrant; my people have been here since 1650, and I don't intend to make the same mistake my one Creek ancestor did. The phenomenon of social compatibility and racial kinship is real, however much the starry-eyed social engineers would like to believe otherwise.
Examples of hard reality: BLACKS MAKE UP 12% OF THE POPULATION AND COMMIT 49% OF ALL MURDERS. Please don't blame all of it on poverty, because INTERPOL states that the crime rate of ANY country is directly related to that portion of the population which is black.
Enough ignorance and smarmy sentimentalism in the guise of social justice and an immigration policy which is nothing other than an affirmative action program for the Third World.
children is not for sale at any price.
Also, do you have any tips for Craig on how much starch to add to your "whites"? How do you get the hood to stay upright so well?
Irwin asked, "I am curious to know the basis of the intellectual position held by those who write letters to the editor condemning the recent wave of immigration?"
In my opinion those writers may fall into two groups. Those that are racist, and those that react out of fear generated from feeling that our government treats them as inconsequential when that government fails to enforce the laws. Reagan said that there would be a "fix" with the amnesty he supported. Didn't happen. The government has not kept its word and does everything in its power to avoid keeping that promise.
Now why is that promise important to many and what is the fear driving the emotional reaction to write letters? I believe it is revolutionary rather than evolutionary societal change. When society evolves the change is little noticed. Revolution always has its opponents. Our immigration laws were designed to allow for evolutionary change. The current state of chaos is a hard pill for many to swallow when they feel American culture and values are not only threatened but we have a government that is active participant in disregard of that promise. People are angry and upset over the revolution and a government that treats them as the enemy for demanding the government do its duty. A double whammy.
Jay it's rather transparent when people excuse the racist remarks uttered by people such as Farakan, Jackson, and Sharpton and those comments get no more than a passing slap on the wrist from the Left. Or like you have no courage to condemn Hillary's racist remarks. However, you seize the moment to slur another commentator here as the "Ghost of Richark Butler" and wrap me into your insult. Can't you rise above such useless tar brushing biggotry or is your intellectual tank on empty?
Another lie: "All men are created equal."
Are you enough of a man to step up and defend that comment as well?
Or are you a pussy to just sit there and parrot "Hillary Hillary Hillary" even though others have pointed out her fast apology and her red faced embarrassment at what she had done?
And as for lumping me in with Jackson, Farakan or Sharpton is lame. They're extremists and opportunists of the worst sort, but again, I make no excuses for them. They may claim they are of the left, but so the KKK claims they are of the right.
You, however, haven't quite reached the level of pure racism and bigotry the Mr Slade has accomplished in just a few paragraphs of extremist xenophobic BS. Keep trying, though, I'll bet you have it in you.
You mock Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Much has happened since that Declaration of Independence. Trying to craft a country guided by that mission statement has been paid for dearly with blood, sweat, tears, and lives. The progress has not been linear, but yet progress is chartable. The context of Jefferson's words were regarding the birth of a nation as the reason for separation from the mother country.
Also, Mr. Slade, you may want to take note that I did not state that we are all immigrants. I stated that we are all descendants of immigrants. If "your people" have been here since 1650, they still came from somewhere else prior to that, right? Therefore, you too are descended from immigrants (unless you claim pure native American heritage...and even there, your distant ancestors would have crossed the Siberian ice bridge thousands of years ago).
As for diversity being a strength versus being a liability, I fail to recognize the validity of your argument. Back up some of your assertions with factual references, and then we can have a discussion.
In cultural terms, too little diversity leads to groupthink, while too much diversity leads to civil war. (Which is not to say that diversity is the only cause of civil war.)
If it could be tidily measured against an absolute scale, we might say that we need more (or less) diversity at any given moment, in order to improve "the group." But society is not so simple as that.
Thank you 6degrees, you summarized my post perfectly. My ad hominid jab at Craig is intentional and it appears to have had its desired effect on a weak individual.
I've lived in segregated parts of America, I've dated across interracial boundaries and I've hired for diversity. As well, I have also recognized that diversity can succeed in some areas while failing in others. Unfortunately there isn't that kind of recognition in broad sweeping statements, such as those by Mr. Slade or by Mr. Sali. In his attempts to correct his accidental truth, Mr. Sali has shown an inability to apologize, an inability to understand how wrong he was on almost ever aspect of his original quote and he continues to employ his even-more-xenophobic spokesperson, Wayne Hoffman.
Mr. Slade appears to have no understanding of causation, no ability to grasp any of the simple dirty racial truths of America and its dealings with African Americans, American Indians or even the Japanese. However, I'm sure that he is a popular commenter on the LGF and Michelle Malkin sites where he can find like minded people that will support his weak skills in promoting racial purity.
Like it or not, at some point in your prior lineage, someone came over an ocean from some other land. Indeed I would venture to say that at some point, every single one of your ancestors came to the "new world" from somewhere across the Atlantic Ocean (or maybe the Pacific Ocean). I would even go so far as to bet you $1000 that I am correct in this assertion.
You may have been born here like I was. Your parents may have been born here like mine were. Your grandparents may have been born here like my father's parents were. But somewhere in the dim recesses of time, there were ancestors that were not born here.
Lastly, I am really sick of hearing such hateful, bigoted, prejudicial comments that contain absolutely nothing worthwhile. By the way, the conquistadores preceded the Mayflower in coming to this land.
I'm terribly sorry if I sounded "hateful, bigoted, prejudicial" to you, Mr Descended-from-Conquerors. Gee, and I'm double terribly sorry for making comments that "contain absolutely nothing worthwhile." Gosh, I guess the folks that immigrated here really were superior beings.
We're not in a position to change the past, for as much as we like to rewrite history.
For my part, Peter, your point is well taken, and I'm going to try to avoid that "we're a nation of immigrants" line from now on. We ARE a nation of many cultures, and we would do well to remember that as we try to find our best way forward together.
I must admit that based on your anglicized name, I did not take you for a pure-blood Native American. I am sorry for making that assumption. However, I am not descended from conquerers. I am descended from immigrants who fled anti-semitic persecution in Eastern Europe in the late-19th and early-20th century only to encounter a less-virulent form of it here. By the time my grandparents and great-grandparents arrived here, your ancestors had already been devastated by those you clearly despise for that holocaust. As such, it really is not my place to apologize to you for that.
>>>>>>>
When Churchill started attacking real Native people behind that law, he opened his own life and identity to scrutiny and criticism.
Native peoples found that Churchill's claims to be a tribal person were baseless and informed CU that he was not a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation or Cherokee Nation.
At the same time that Churchill was dissing ''card-carrying Indians,'' he started waving around something that purported to be an ''associate membership'' in the Keetoowah Band of Cherokees, which translated into English as ''not even close to being Native.'' The Keetoowah Band does not claim Churchill as one of its own.
Churchill struck out at anyone and everyone who would not validate him as a Native person, exhibiting a virulent attitude against Native people of a kind rarely seen beyond the rings of anti-Indian hate groups.
When Churchill was exposed as non-Indian, CU defended him and high-handedly dismissed the Native nations and people who refuted his claims. Self-declaration of Indian identity is good enough for the academy, said the CU officials.
<<<<<<<<<<
CU caved in to political pressure from born-again idiots like Tancredo. They broke the rules of tenure—which, of course, the radical right would like to get rid of, anyhow. So much of the attack on Churchill seems orchestrated by David Horowitz, a noted non-scholar. The attack is part of the return to the 3-Rs position—get rid of gender and ethnic studies, don't even mention relativism (or Darwinism, for that matter), and the dismantling of the American education system.
Harjo is a good poet and a not-too-bad musician. Try this link on the purge of Churchill:
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606&L=SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE&T=0&F;=&S;=&P=5481
Regarding Ms. Harjo see: http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=26
She doesn't seem the type to buckle from pressure from anyone. Where is she wrong in your opinion?
Read the link and let me know what you think of the commentaries on Ward's scholarship and the political interference in the university system. —If you want. If you don't want, well...hmm, go read David Horowitz or something.
I'll insult you all I want.
Whatever else one can say about the human species, we have a special talent for killing each other over, what I consider to be, truly stupid differences. Religion... ethnicity... race... tribalism... nationalism...whatever reason one group can use to marginalize another group can eventually be used to eliminate that other group.
Keep the faith.