Comments on: The “Nation of Immigrants” Myth

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:24:16 +0000

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.

By: Rick Darby

Rick Darby — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:46:47 +0000

“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.

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:14:22 +0000

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.

By: Roach

Roach — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:40:29 +0000

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?

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:32:42 +0000

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.