The ever prolific Daniel Larison very deftly uncovers what is meant by the notion that we are a “nation of immigrants” in this entry. He writes:
The phrase is distinctly odd, since no nation today can correctly claim to be such a thing, as every people has been settled in more or less the same country for ages. There are nations that have had a history of periodic large-scale immigration, and this is usually what is meant by the deceptive phrase ââ¬Ånation of immigrants,ââ¬Â though it has long been the case for most of the history of this country the immigrants were not constituting the nation but instead joined themselves, more or less, to the people that was already here. If we spoke of a ââ¬Ånation of immigrants,ââ¬Â we might as well also speak of a ââ¬Åtradition of innovationsââ¬Â or a ââ¬Åconstitution of amendments.ââ¬Â
But the reason why it is ingenious is that it forcibly identifies everyone in the debateââ¬âor at least everyone who concedes the use of the phraseââ¬âwith the current immigrants. If we are a nation of immigrants, this means that we are all immigrants, which ultimately means that we have no more right to this place than the new immigrants do, which is a manifest lie. We do have more right to it, and will have at least until such time as we have been driven off the land, and perhaps our better claim will not cease even then.
Most peoples throughout history have created myths of heroic ancestors who first settled in a land and gave their name to it; most peoples will construct elaborate mythologies to establish their timeless claims to a piece of land. With this preposterous rhetoric of being a ââ¬Ånation of immigrantsââ¬Â (who is responsible for this travesty of language?), Americans are among the few nations in the world who pride themselves on not being from the land that they live in and making no attempt to pretend otherwise.
In other words, for us to be a nation of immigrants is just another way of saying we’re not a nation at all, a “nation” of foreigners. I think one goal in earlier descriptions of our nation as a “nation of immigrants was to make newcomers feel welcome as they struggled to conform to American mores. So what if you have an accent, we’re a nation of immigrants, just keep trying. A generous welcome wagon coupled with a firm commitment to assimilation generally prevented earlier waves immigrants from becoming an alienated, hostile, unhappy, and unassimilated mass. But today the phrase is employed to prevent native-born Americans from having the confidence to encourage any assimilation whatsoever.
7 Sep 2006 at 4:32 pm
The phrase “nation of immigrants” is merely a reminder that our nation has largely been built on the accumulation of immigrants from other countries. If you aren’t pure American Indian, you’ve got a lineage that traces back to Europe or Africa or elsewhere. This is a useful reminder for those who fret over cultural Armageddon as they look askance at today’s immigrants.
The strawman here is the assertion that “nation of immigrants” affects the debate over assimilation. It simply does no such thing. That we should embrace immigration does not lead to the idea that we should make available all government forms in every language. Our ancestors assimilated, we’ve assimilated, today’s immigrants will assimilate — especially their children and grandchildren. Knowing this takes the bite out of the culturkamf hand-wringing.
7 Sep 2006 at 5:40 pm
And what does assimilation mean to you, James, other than knowing English? What makes Americans different from Frenchman, Iraqis, Mexicans, or anyone else? And what kinds of attachments to other cultural expressions might deem someone unassimilated, in your view?
8 Sep 2006 at 8:14 am
In my view, you have assimilation when a person has a good enough grasp of the local culture to interact with it without the need assistance. Primarily, this means a knowledge of language and custom. It does not mean observing Christian-based American holidays, like Christmas, otherwise Jews and Muslims could never be deemed “assimiliated.” It also does not mean a conformity with the values and goals of the Founding Fathers, otherwise the writers at The Nation aren’t “assimilated.” But being familiar with the customs of Christmas and the ethic that America is the “land of opportunity” generally suffices, for example.
I don’t really see anything inherently “different” between an American and a Frenchman and an Iraqi. We’re all human beings. You may believe that there are inherent differences in character, as in the “typical American” is more individualistic, the Frenchman more nationalistic, the Iraqi more tribalistic, but these are transient stereotypes at best. If I go to France and am able to interact with the people there without assistance and understand their basic prevalent customs, I’m assimilated, even if I don’t happen to “live like a Frenchman” or buy into the idea of French identity.
8 Sep 2006 at 4:46 pm
“In my view, you have assimilation when a person has a good enough grasp of the local culture to interact with it without the need assistance.”
Well then, I am definitely not assimilated when I visit New York.
Anyway, we now have millions of legal and illegal immigrants who are assimilated by your definition: They grasp enough of the local culture to game the system — having anchor babies, working “off the books,” screeching “racism” at anyone who believes in enforcing the borders.
That doesn’t mean, however, they understand anything about the host culture other than “what’s in it for me?” or feel any loyalty to a common good.
11 Sep 2006 at 11:24 am
If “gaming the system” isn’t a clear indication of assimilation, then what is? After all, to do this requires an understanding of the system we live within. Don’t hate the player, hate the game, e.g.
Yes, I think there are probably millions of assimilated legal and illegal immigrants in America. You may want to set the bar higher in order to squeeze them out, perhaps set some sort of standard for Americanism, but you’d be necessarily excluding a lot of born-and-raised Americans in the process. If “what’s in it for me” excluded one from assimilation, then I wonder if even half of America would qualify as assimilated.