By Ralf Seiffe
As a family that traces its first New World grave to 1630’s Boston, we have been debating immigration for a long time. While I have little idea what a multiply-great grandfather might have thought about the “flood of Irishmen” 150 years ago, my opinion was congruent with the Wall Street Journal until recently. In the last several months, however, I’ve changed my mind like a lot of my neighbors have. Americans are reacting to a new sort of immigrant and deciding, for historically justifiable reasons, that it is time to stop the flood over our southern border.
Opposition to what’s thought to be uncontrolled immigration has been a theme in American politics for a long time. More than a century ago, politicians had already divided into pro and anti-immigration factions. The current thought to exclude low-skill or illiterates is nothing new; at the turn of the last century, the memorable Henry Cabot Lodge proposed that no adult would be admitted if they could not read 40 words in any language. Lodge’s bill was vetoed by Grover Cleveland who had a Vice President by the name of Adlai Stephenson, in 1896. Nevertheless, Lodge’s view of the standard for admission to the United States still makes some sense: “If a man is going to be an American at all, let him be so without any qualifying adjectives; and if he is going to be something else, let him drop the word American from his personal description.”
Several years later, Teddy Roosevelt expressed a similar sentiment: “…it is an outrage to discriminate against any such [immigrant] because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.”
Far from a nation of immigrants who have recently decided to pull up the ladder, most of us agree with Grover Cleveland’s observation that, “We have encouraged those coming from foreign countries to cast their lot with us and join in the development of our vast domain, securing in return a share in the blessings of American citizenship.”
These three politicians were not allies but each recognized there is a central requirement for admission. This translates through a century of debate setting an objective standard for admission. Immigrants should still be welcome if they come “without qualifying adjectives,” “without divided allegiance” and are, “willing to cast their lot with us.”
It’s my sense that Americans perceive that new immigrants are violating this attractive, century old standard, one articulated by both parties. Rather than casting their lot as with us, Americans perceive the current crop of immigrants does not want to take that step. Here are a few data points:
• The realities of a month-long ocean crossing made earlier immigration a qualitatively different experience than the current one-day river or desert crossings. A century ago, it was practically impossible to return to the “old country” so the choice to come to the “New World” was a permanent one. This forced earlier immigrants to become, in very fact, Americans.
• Earlier immigrants understood that to succeed, it was important to learn English. They may have spoken their mother tongue at home or in their workshops but they voted and went to city hall in English. New immigrants are unwilling to cast their lot in English, insisting on bilingual government. Then, as is happening in California, they sue us when they are unable to pass high school competency tests because they do no t speak English. We innately perceive this self-imposed impediment as attempting to become an American with qualifying adjectives, a disqualifying condition.
• New immigrants run our borders to give birth in the United States so their children will be U.S. citizens without becoming citizens themselves. While he may not have meant it in this way, alien parents and citizen children violates the standard Teddy Roosevelt set regarding divided loyalties. Americans recognize this as an out-of-bounds foul, intuitively.
• The earlier immigrants still celebrate their culture in the form of St. Patrick’s Day, Columbus Day or even Casimir Pulaski Day. These holidays celebrate the assimilation of one culture into another and the sponsors invite all Americans to participate. Americans do participate because we revel in their assimilation. New immigrants celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a holiday that commemorates the Mexican victory at Puebla over French invaders in 1862. This holiday is an explicit celebration of Mexican political history, not a cultural celebration. It’s not really in the American experience and to observe it requires one to divide loyalties between Puebla and Valley Forge. Americans understand and reject this.
There are certainly more topical objections such as the social costs, the depression of wages, welfare and the simple concept of the rule of law. All of these were also part of the debate a century ago. Another school of thought, advocated by very thoughtful and sincere intellects, counsel that no action is indicated because the problem should be solved with American principles in a measured and thoughtful way. They point out that third generation families speak English nearly exclusively. They may be right.
On the other hand, during an historical period when there were no restrictions on immigration, leaders on both sides came to agreement on objective—and timeless-- standards for admission. These requirements simply asked that if one came to America, that one would become an American. These principles were--and are--not racist or discriminatory. Indeed, these historical figures recognized that immigrants came primarily to share the nation’s bounty. That motivation remains today and compels newcomers who meet Lodge, Cleveland and Roosevelt’s standards to assimilate. George Bush and Congress would do well to predicate our immigration policies on this century-old wisdom as a first principle.
