Assimilation...Now more than ever?

Assimilation is required in a nation that wishes to integrate immigrants into the society as part of the work force and as loyal citizens. The U.S. has an extensive history involving immigration, receiving millions of immigrants from every continent (except for Antarctica, obviously), so our ability to assimilate new countrymen and women has always been challenged.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by John Fonte from Hudson Institute on what he likes to call the "Patriotic Assimilation" of immigrants into the United States civic body:


"George Washington wrote John Adams that he envisioned immigrants becoming “assimilated to our customs, measures, laws,” and because of this, he predicted, native-born citizens and immigrants would “soon become one people.” In the same vein, more than a century later Theodore Roosevelt stated, “The immigrant who comes here in good faith [and] becomes an American and assimilates himself to us... Shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But that is predicated upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American...”

In a similar manner, Roosevelt’s chief political rival, President Woodrow Wilson, told immigrants at a citizenship ceremony, “I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin—these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts—but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become... With every purpose of your will thorough Americans..."


Closer to our own time, in a 1995 New York Times oped entitled “The Americanization Ideal,” the late Texas Democratic congresswoman Barbara Jordan wrote, “Immigration imposes mutual obligations. Those who choose to come here must embrace the common core of American civic culture,” but the native-born must “assist them” in learning about America, and, at the same time, must oppose prejudice and “vigorously enforce” laws against discrimination.


In different ways, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Jordan all advocated "patriotic" assimilation. Clearly, there are different types of assimilation. Economic assimilation implies that immigrants are doing well financially and joining the middle class. Linguistic assimilation means that newcomers are learning to speak English. Cultural assimilation could mean that immigrants are becoming absorbed (for better or worse) into the mainstream popular culture of twenty-first century American life. Although economic, linguistic, and cultural forms of assimilation are clearly significant, nothing is more important to the health of American democracy than the patriotic assimilation of the millions of immigrants who have come to our shores.


Patriotic assimilation does not mean giving up all of one’s ethnic traditions, customs, cuisine, and birth language. It has nothing to do with the food one eats, the religion one practices, the affection one feels for the land of one’s birth, or the languages a person speaks. Multi-ethnic and ethnic subcultures have enriched America and have always been part of our past. Historically, the immigration saga has involved “give and take” between immigrants and the native-born. That is to say, immigrants have helped shape America even as this nation has Americanized them."


So with this supposed influx of illegal immigrants (not only Mexicans, contrary to popular belief) our ability to assimilate others is being tested again. Some refuse to learn the language, and some refuse to acknowledge our American traditions. Will this lead to refusal to follow laws that they see as unjust in their own views? What kind of havoc will it create if immigrants refuse, or in some cases cannot adjust to our nation's Constitution?

If you would like to read the rest of the article: http://www.Hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2855



Amanda:

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Multiculturalism_vs._assimilation

"In North America, the United States is more representative of the assimilationist approach, being popularly known as a melting pot, while Canada is more representative of the multicultural approach, being known as a multicultural mosaic."

I feel that we need a clearer outline of what assimilation is expected from immigrants. Not all areas of the country provide the same level of diversity for the residents. It needs to be consistent. This article, I feel, covers both sides of the argument.


Billy:

I believe that the citizens of a country expect, and have every right to expect, certain things from people coming to live in their country. You are expected to abide by that county's laws, to contribute to that country's society/economy, and learn the language and dialect to better do these. But if an immigrant fails to assimilate and the government has to support them, they become nothing more than a leech. The whole assimilation process aims to integrate new citizens into the workforce and population so that they can become productive.


Daniel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601376.HTML

As Charles Krauthammer states: "The key to assimilation, of course, is language. The real threat to the United States is not immigration per se but bilingualism and, ultimately, biculturalism."

It is evident there must be a clear outline of what is expected of immigrants. As a nation, if we are to assimilate immigrants into society, we must initially provide full expectations. If not, as Charles states, immigration will then become a liability, rather than an asset. We must be productive and straightforward on this matter.