In her latest article, Peggy Noonan discusses the meaning of being American, from the point of view of an immigrant. She recalls a trip to Ireland years back, where she met up with an old friend of her grandfather. The friend was with Noonan's grandfather at the moment he set off for America to begin a new life. She makes a great point when she distinguishes the mindset of immigrants today from that of immigrants of ages past. It's pretty thought provoking.
_________________
My grandfather had his struggles here but never again went home. He'd cast his lot. That's an important point in the immigrant experience, when you cast your lot, when you make your decision. It makes you let go of something. And it makes you hold on to something. The thing you hold on to is the new country. In succeeding generations of your family the holding on becomes a habit and then a patriotism, a love. You realize America is more than the place where the streets were paved with gold. It has history, meaning, tradition. Suddenly that's what you treasure.
A problem with newer immigrants now is that for some it's no longer necessary to make The Decision. They don't always have to cast their lot. There are so many ways not to let go of the old country now, from choosing to believe that America is only about money, to technology that encourages you to stay in constant touch with the land you left, to TV stations that broadcast in the old language. If you're an immigrant now, you don't have to let go. Which means you don't have to fully join, to enmesh. Your psychic investment in America doesn't have to be full. It can be provisional, temporary. Or underdeveloped, or not developed at all.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010269
I don't know that Noonan's point is completely accurate. It may be thought provoking, but I would say that is so because of its absurd generalizations of immigrants today and in the past. Here are a couple of quick points which will hopefully start a good fight:
ReplyDeleteRegarding the immigrants of her grandfather's generation; where they were coming from in most cases was Europe--considerably farther than, say, Mexico--and man's ability to travel was much more primitive today (think steam ship vs airplane/automobile). So in a sense, the generation Noonan is describing had their hand forced in a way due to distance and the technological limitations of their time, not because of any casting of lots. Today travel is cheap and one could probably go back and forth to Ireland a dozen times in the time it took past generations to make it here (that by the way is a good thing). Additionally, I do not accept her romanticized version of immigrants of old appreciating the history & tradition of America. The fact of the matter is that most immigrants lived in ghetto communites where they held on to their traditions as well as developed new ones as they were in America longer. Immigrants today are doing the same thing: let's give them a few generations to become more patriotic if there really is a lack.
In short, I am not sure that Noonan's "The Decision" thesis makes sense to me. Adding an ad hominem attack, I would like to know how many immigrants Noonan knows--I know many who work very hard, have bought houses in America, pay taxes, and are taking advantage of the educational opportunities in America. Those individuals can visit their countries of origin as much as they want as far as I am concerned.
**MORE TO COME**
Let’s start by pointing out the similarities between immigrants of yesterday and those of today. That may help to better understand our difference of opinion (if there are any). It seems that one driving force behind immigration to the United States throughout the ages is the opportunity for a better life, in the economic sense; that is to say, a wider job market, greater opportunities to have a better life, etc. Irish immigrants, not to mention Italians from the southern end of the peninsula, sought to escape the poverty of their respective countries with the hope of finding in the United States those basic conditions that would allow for a chance at prosperity. No doubt, immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are motivated by similar objectives today. I will grant that stories of past immigration can become somewhat “romanticized.” There is certainly a danger of making slapdash generalizations of disparate immigrant experiences. But I think that it is a fair to say that the majority of immigrants are driven by economic realities back home.
ReplyDeleteIt is also true, as you indicate, that past immigrants hunkered down in the US and preserved their identities within distinct cultural microcosms. In the city of Milwaukee, Germans, Polish and Italians, among others, were well known for their tightly knit ethnic enclaves. That said, I think there was, however, a greater willingness on the part of past immigrants to assimilate to “life” in the United States. Preservation is one thing, and a noble thing at that, but obstinate resistance to familiarize yourself with the environment in which you yourself chose to settle is quite another. It seems to me, at the risk of generalizing, that many of the low-skilled, undereducated immigrants flocking to the US today arrive with a troubling entitlement/victim mentality that is inherently resistant to any assimilation. Instead of viewing the United States as a noble country worthy of a certain abandonment and openness on the part of the immigrant, a good number of immigrants today see the US as evil, oppressive, unfairly wealthy and, as such, owes them something more than just opportunity. We then enter into the rights-talk conundrum that has plagued the political discourse for decades.
An all too popular tendency observed in Latin America is for pandering politicians to frame the political and cultural discourse in simplistic terms of rich against poor; placing the blame for widespread poverty squarely on the United States. (Enter Hugo Chavez) The poor masses, understandably not too well educated, respond to this prism of Marxist “blame the rich Yankees” rhetoric with gusto. Wealth and prosperity, instead of being seen as the fruits of education, hard work and innovation is understood as an exclusive consequence of imperialism and exploitation, via capitalism. The hatred that is being fomented in Latin America toward the United States is, I believe, one of the most underrated stories out there. How this ethos affects the mentality of immigrants from these countries is a worthy question.
Now, I have known many immigrants from India, the Philippines and Cuba who have not followed this course of victimization but have worked hard, without expecting special treatment or privileges, and as a result have become quite successful, some even wealthy. An open question: What distinguishes their mindset from that of the majority of illegal Mexican immigrants?
Thanks Jason for the thoughts. This is a good discussion.
I say US policy should be learn English and get a college degree before you even think about immigrating. I read today that microsoft is moving a major portion of its facilitites to Canada because of our immigration rules. There goes 3000 jobs. We need highly skilled immigrants in this country so that is who we should try and attract. There are plenty of US citizens that can do the work that most immigrants are doing here.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your characterization of Central/South American immigrants, and without having any data handy, am willing to say that what you are describing is the exception. From what I can tell, the majority of Mexicans, for instance, are industrious workers and do not expect special treatment, hence the terrible jobs & pay they accept once here.
Don't confuse socialist jargon with the real, everyday mentality of the poor who come here to make a living.
*More to come*
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI probably should have clarified my ideas a bit more. I wholeheartedly agree that most immigrants from Mexico and Latin America are hard working and industrious. In prior discussions, I've always spoken highly of the impressive work ethic, of Mexican immigrants in particular. When I say, "uneducated" or "low-skilled" I do not mean indolent.
That said, I do stand by my original assertion that many immigrants from Latin America arrive here with an entitlement mentality. Having this particular mentality and being hard working are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although at times they can be.
The problem is that around the world, especially in Latin America but also in Europe, people are taught to believe from a very young age that the purpose of the government is to provide for them. Much of this thinking has, unfortunately, infiltrated Church social teaching. So when they arrive here, already harboring this notion, it's easy to see how they could fall into this trap of dependency. Throughout the course of the illegal immigration debate a few weeks back, one of the principal concerns of conservatives had to do with the devastating effect immediate legalization would have on the economy, in terms of social security and government-provided health care, etc. Legalization would automatically qualify them for benefits from the government. I don't think we can ignore these factors when discussing illegal immigration. Many immigrants have families and are, understandably, looking for security when they arrive here.
During the immigration debate, I was struck and disturbed by the repeated implications made by politicians that America somehow owes something to immigrants who are violating the law. Here, I want to be perfectly clear that I'm distinguishing carefully between legal and illegal immigrants. I brought up, in a previous post a month or so back, how certain towns are changing their laws to accommodate illegal immigrants. Those immigrants who have pursued the correct legal formula should feel the most upset.
To be american means to allow immigrants in: "bring me your huddled masses." What the establishment is doing to the Mexicans is exactly what the establishment did to the Irish-Catholics in the 1800's. Every couple of generations we have this problem and it always works out in the end. In 100 years guys names Gonzalez will be running the country and making the same arguments to keep out people from France or wherever. The only reason anyone cares about this now is because both poltical parties are fighting for votes.
ReplyDelete