"Undocumented Americans": What Does It Mean to Be American and What's At Stake? (Disturbing!)

American Thinker ^

[quesney]

uly 02, 2007 What Does It Mean To Be An American? By Steven M. Warshawsky "Undocumented Americans." This is how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently described the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens living in America. What was once a Mark Steyn joke has now become the ideological orthodoxy of the Democratic Party.

Reid's comment triggered an avalanche of outrage among commentators, bloggers, and the general public. Why? Because it strikes at the heart of the American people's understanding of themselves as a nation and a civilization. Indeed, opposition to the ongoing push for "comprehensive immigration reform" -- i.e., amnesty and a guest worker program -- is being driven by a growing concern among millions of Americans that massive waves of legal and illegal immigration -- mainly from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia -- coupled with the unwillingness of our political and economic elites to mold these newcomers into red-white-and-blue Americans, is threatening to change the very character of our country. For the worse.

I share this concern. I agree with the political, economic, and cultural arguments in favor of sharply curtailing immigration into the United States, as well as refocusing our immigration efforts on admitting those foreigners who bring the greatest value to -- and are most easily assimilated into -- American society. (See generally here, here , and here.) But this essay is not intended to rehash these arguments. Rather, I wish to explore the question that underlies this entire debate: What does it mean to be an American? This may seem like an easy question to answer, but it's not. The harder one thinks about this question, the more complex it becomes.

Clearly, Harry Reid has not given this question much thought. His implicit definition of "an American" is simply: Anyone living within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States. In other words, mere physical location on Earth determines whether or not someone is "an American." Presumably, Reid's definition is not intended to apply to tourists and other temporary visitors. Some degree of permanency -- what the law in other contexts calls "residency," i.e., a subjective intention to establish one's home or domicile -- is required. In Reid's view, therefore, a Mexican from Guadalajara, a Chinese from Shanghei, an Indian from Delhi, or a [fill in the blank] become "Americans" as soon as they cross into U.S. territory and decide to live here permanently, legally or not. Nothing more is needed.

This is poppycock, of course. A Mexican or a Chinese or an Indian, for example, cannot transform themselves into Americans simply by moving to this country, any more than I can become a Mexican, a Chinese, or an Indian simply by moving to their countries. Yet contemporary liberals have a vested interest in believing that they can. This is not just a function of immigrant politics, which strongly favors the Democratic Party (hence the Democrats' growing support for voting rights for non-citizens). It also reflects the liberals' (and some libertarians') multicultural faith, which insists that it is morally wrong to make distinctions among different groups of people, let alone to impose a particular way of life -- what heretofore has been known as the American way of life -- on those who believe, speak, and act differently. Even in our own country.

In short, diversity, not Americanism, is the multicultural touchstone.

What's more, the principle of diversity, taken to its logical extreme, inevitably leads to a rejection of Americanism. Indeed, the ideology of multiculturalism has its roots in the radical -- and anti-American -- New Left and Black Power movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus the sorry state of U.S. history and civics education in today's schools and universities, which are dominated by adherents of this intellectual poison. Moreover, when it comes to immigration, multiculturalists actually prefer those immigrants who are as unlike ordinary Americans as possible. This stems from their deep-rooted opposition to traditional American society, which they hope to undermine through an influx of non-western peoples and cultures.

This, in fact, describes present U.S. immigration policy, which largely is a product of the 1965 Immigration Act (perhaps Ted Kennedy's most notorious legislative achievement). The 1965 Immigration Act eliminated the legal preferences traditionally given to European immigrants, and opened the floodgates to immigration from less-developed and non-western countries. For example, in 2006 more immigrants came to the United States from Columbia, Peru, Vietnam, and Haiti (not to mention Mexico, China, and India), than from the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Greece. And once these immigrants arrive here, multiculturalists believe we should accommodate our society to the needs and desires of the newcomers, not the other way around. Thus, our government prints election ballots, school books, and welfare applications in foreign languages, while corporate America asks customers to "press one for English."

Patriotic Americans -- those who love our country for its people, its history, its culture, and its ideals -- reject the multiculturalists' denuded, and ultimately subversive, vision of what it means to be "an American." While the American identity is arguably the most "universal" of all major nationalities -- as evidenced by the millions of immigrants the world over who have successfully assimilated into our country over the years -- it is not an empty, meaningless concept. It has substance. Being "an American" is not the same thing as simply living in the United States. Nor, I would add, is it the same thing as holding U.S. citizenship. After all, a baby born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien is a citizen. This hardly guarantees that this baby will grow up to be an American.

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we "know it when we see it." For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It's not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of "American" that excludes such folks -- let alone one that excludes me! -- cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a "white-majority, Western country." Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be "an American." Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation's "demographic profile." Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Whether described as a "proposition nation" or a "creedal nation" or simply just "an idea," the United States of America is defined by our way of life. This way of life is rooted in the ideals proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; in the system of personal liberty and limited government established by the Constitution; in our traditions of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and entrepreneurism; in our emphasis on private property, freedom of contract, and merit-based achievement; in our respect for the rule of law; and in our commitment to affording equal justice to all. Perhaps above all, it is marked by our abiding belief that, as Americans, we have been called to a higher duty in human history. We are the "city upon a hill." We are "the last, best hope of earth."

Many immigration restrictionists and so-called traditionalists chafe at the notion that the American people are not defined by "blood and soil." Yet the truth of the matter is, we aren't. One of the greatest patriots who ever graced this nation's history, Teddy Roosevelt, said it best: "Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul." Roosevelt deplored what he called "hyphenated Americanism," which refers to citizens whose primary loyalties lie with their particular ethnic groups or ancestral lands. Such a man, Roosevelt counseled, is to be "unsparingly condemn[ed]."

But Roosevelt also recognized that "if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else." Roosevelt's words are not offered here to suggest that all foreigners are equally capable of assimilating into our country. Clearly, they aren't. Nevertheless, the appellation "American" is open to anyone who adopts our way of life and loves this country above all others.

Which brings me to the final, and most difficult, aspect of this question: How do we define the "American way of life"? This is the issue over which our nation's "culture wars" are being fought. Today the country is divided between those who maintain their allegiance to certain historically American values, beliefs, and institutions (but not all -- see racial segregation), and those who want to replace them with a very different set of ideas about the role of government, the nature of political and economic liberty, and the meaning of right and wrong. Are both sides in this struggle equally "American"?

Moreover, the "American way of life" has changed over time. We no longer have the Republic that existed in TR's days. The New Deal and Great Society revolutions -- enthusiastically supported, I note, by millions of white, Christian, English-speaking citizens -- significantly altered the political, economic, and social foundations of this country. Did they also change what it means to be "an American"? Is being an American equally compatible, for example, with support for big government versus small government? the welfare state versus rugged individualism? socialism versus capitalism? And so on. Plainly, this is a much harder historical and intellectual problem than at first meets the eye.

Personally, I do not think the meaning of America is nearly so malleable as today's multiculturalists assume. But neither is it quite as narrow as many restrictionists contend. Nevertheless, I am convinced that being an American requires something more than merely living in this country, speaking English, obeying the law, and holding a job (although this would be a very good start!). What this "something more" is, however, is not self-evident, and, indeed, is the subject of increasingly bitter debate in this country.

Yet one thing is certain: If we stray too far from the lines laid down by the Founding Fathers and the generations of great American men and women who built on their legacy, we will cease to be "Americans" in any meaningful sense of the word. As Abraham Lincoln warned during the secession era, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Today the danger is not armed rebellion, but the slow erasing of the American national character through a process of political and cultural redefinition. If this ever happens, it will be a terrible day for this country, and for the world.

[quesney]

This basically solidifies the Democratic party in my mind as a pack of traitors. They're willing to sell us out to anyone, from Mexico to Islamofascists. Anything up to and including our very security, sovereignty and heritage is up for bid in their blind pursuit of power and everyone else's wealth. They're ready and willing to risk turning us into a Mexican banana republic and our cities into terrorist bullseyes as long as it means more votes for them.

[ripley]

the democrat party; all heroes of the soviet union.

[raybbr]

The Declining Diversity of Immigrants

NEXT

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

Excerpt....

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

NEXT

October 25, 2006 Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

So much has been written about this. Till now most of it has been ignored. A small percentage of people are waking up to the cultural disaster happening under their noses. It started with the "push for diversity" which was used as a battering ram against the wall of traditional values and beliefs. The wall is crumbling under the weight of guilt and divisiveness.

[kabar]

The Hispanic Challenge By Samuel P. Huntington

"The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril."

Bush's America: Roach Motel by Ann Coulter

Path to national suicide-Buchanana

Can anyone provide a good reason why the Social Security Board of Trustees Issues Annual Report must be published in Spanish on an official USG website?

[advertising guy]

isn’t an “undocumented American” when your daddy has sex with his sister and you are born ?????

[xcamel]

"Can anyone provide a good reason why the Social Security Board of Trustees Issues Annual Report must be published in Spanish on an official USG website?"

So the mexican government can include the numbers in their national budget...

[philman_36]

The New Deal and Great Society revolutions -- enthusiastically supported, I note, by millions of white, Christian, English-speaking citizens -- significantly altered the political, economic, and social foundations of this country.
That is a stretch of a statement in it's implication. There was no long term understanding and/or consideration of what those programs would bring in the future by most of the American public. In both cases the people trusted that their representatives wouldn't sell them down the river, which is exactly what they did.
Many today don't even understand the ripple effect that both of those programs started. If Joe/Joan Average were asked today if those were good programs he/she would, in their ignorance, say that they were good programs simply because they've been taught to believe that they were.

[Condor51]

multiculturalists believe we should accommodate our society to the needs and desires of the newcomers, not the other way around. Thus, our government prints election ballots, school books, and welfare applications in foreign languages, while corporate America asks customers to "press one for English."

[sweetiepiezer]

Interesting stats:

14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...$$$$’s.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their
children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States .
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht> http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States “.
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and
$230 BILLION DOLLARS, Heck get rid of em’, We’ll be ahead after the 1st year!!!

[Savage Beast]

"Clearly, Harry Reid has not given this question much thought."

Uh... Clearly, Harry Reid is not capable of much thought.

He's like Jimmy Carter--a syrupy, mindless moron.

[taxed2death]

“This basically solidifies the Democratic party in my mind as a pack of traitors. They’re willing to sell us out to anyone, from Mexico to Islamofascists. Anything up to and including our very security, sovereignty and heritage is up for bid in their blind pursuit of power and everyone else’s wealth. They’re ready and willing to risk turning us into a Mexican banana republic and our cities into terrorist bullseyes as long as it means more votes for them.”

...have you forgotten that GWB was hispandering and shilling for amnesty?

[Savage Beast]

Oops! I forgot to say egocentric.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark for later

[ripley]

alot of good articles. thank you.

[em2vn]

“To call illegal aliens, undocumented workers, is like calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmicists.” Lou Dobbs

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

...have you forgotten that GWB was hispandering and shilling for amnesty?

Now that Bush has taken his mask off, anyone willing to see beholds a classical “progressive”. Tossing an occasional and usually frivolous conservative bone to the pack no longer conceals his true nature and intent.

[Gritty]

[nyyankeefan]

“Undocumented Americans”: What Does It Mean to Be American?””

it means all the taxpaying hardworking law abiding americans must fund all the turd world invading hordes that come across the borders with the complicity of the lib/dems - jorge bush and no cajones republicans and demand that the public pay for every social welfare expense demanded!!!!

Build the F’n Fence!!!!

[Osage Orange]

I like that..!!

but it's pharmAcists...not pharmicists

“To call illegal aliens, undocumented workers, is like calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists.”

[Mike Darancette]

The Democrats would seem to prefer the European model of immigration where a permanent cultural underclass beholding to the government is created. This works so well in Britain that even the most talented immigrants are fodder for global terrorists’ deadly designs.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

the liberals' (and some libertarians') multicultural faith

With the risk of appearing insensitive to an actual tragic event I offer this for multiculturalism's advocates. Maybe they are right?

A recent tragic event in Sacramento cost the life of a human being. A group of Russians and a group of East Indians got into an argument at a local park, the radio news reported. The groups exchanged insults that led to a fight. One of the East Indians was killed.

Had the two groups not spoke English (ugh!) they would not have understood the insults that were being exchanged and the victim of assimilation would still be alive.

Thank you. A. Liberal.

This poor effort trying to be funny is a stretch? Try this. I've read a statement by an ultra-liberal (I think it was T. Kennedy) who feeeeeeeeeeeels that President Bush is lying about Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

You see, polls indicated that many Americans wrongly believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. President Bush does not do enough to counter that misbelief. Therefore Bush is lying.

Liberals. What fine mess. . . .

[norton]

"Hispandering"

Fits very nicely,
think I'll borrow it.