Immigration- did T.Roosevelt have it right?

[Qdrop]

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man 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.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

"We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

-Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

in the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., "Italian-American") and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America.

"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.

"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.

"If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically."
-February 1916

"I appeal to all our citizens," the colonel said, "no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischiefmakers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin."

Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism — to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen "whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came."

"The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries amd jealousies and hatreds."2
- Memorial Day speech, 1917
---------

still relevant, or outdated and xenophobic?

discuss.

[Mot]

Interesting read.
I think its still relevant.

I agree 100 percent. When did we lose our way and start pandering to all these sub groups? If you want to be an American, then try to fit it. I understand that some people are proud of their heritage, but at least speak english when in public. Part of that problem is the fact that you can go about daily life and everyone will cater to you. You can go to the supermarket, walmart, home depot, or DMV and find someone who speaks spanish.

[chrisd]

becoming an american doesn't mean becoming a WASP!

[Qdrop]

becoming an american doesn't mean becoming a WASP!

how does learning English, pledging allegiance to the American flag and this nation above others (because you LIVE here), make you a white anglosaxon protestant?

just curious.

[EN[i]GMA]

how does learning English,

Shouldn't be required.

America isn't an 'English' country, or at least, it hasn't always been.

At one point in time German was more widely spoken, so I've heard.

pledging allegiance to the American flag and this nation above others (because you LIVE here),

I live here and I was born here and I don't do that.

Pledging allegiance to a country, to anything really, is stupid.

[Qdrop]

GMA']Shouldn't be required.

America isn't an 'English' country, or at least, it hasn't always been.

At one point in time German was more widely spoken, so I've heard.
that's just so non-pragmatic.
just for the logistics of mass communication in a society this large, you must create a standard language.

one of THE greatest dividers in countries like India and China are the nearly hundereds of differant dialects.


I live here and I was born here and I don't do that.

Pledging allegiance to a country, to anything really, is stupid.
man, that's just ass backwards.

i suppose this must now digress to debate about the value of nationalism....eh?

[STANKY808]

that's just so non-pragmatic.
just for the logistics of mass communication in a society this large, you must create a standard language.

one of THE greatest dividers in countries like India and China are the nearly hundereds of differant dialects.



And what of a place such as Europe? I mean what of the multiple languages spoken in various countries? And as an aside - you know there are benefits to speaking more than one language?

As for India - I thought they were thriving and part of that is, from what I understand, because they added another language (english) to the multitude already being spoken there.

[yeahwho]

During Roosevelt's tenure as POTUS (1901-1909) the military was segregated and so was every other aspect of life for minoities in the USA. The right to vote had been won for all, but in the South trying to register was akin to walking into the Lion's Den. (Military Academy's have just recently addressed a 25% minority enrollment)

I do agree that becoming a citizen of the USA is not a right. It is a something to be earned and not given away. Once a person takes the oath and becomes an American citizen I don't really give a shit what happens. I cannot force anybody to do anything beyond what is required already by US immigrations and naturalizations. We are a land of laws and rules and from the statistics of the US prison system I see that many nations are represented(!)

They state (http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/immigration/immigration_01.html);

Being able to speak, understand, read, and write simple English during the citizenship interview, unless you have a physical or mental impairment that prevents you from learning English. You may be exempt from this requirement if you are over the age of 50 and have been a permanent resident for over 20 years.

among other things. The wait is 18 months minimun and can be as much as 5 years.

[Qdrop]

And what of a place such as Europe?
what of them?


I mean what of the multiple languages spoken in various countries? And as an aside - you know there are benefits to speaking more than one language?
there are tremendous benefits in learning other languages, particularly if you are planning on traveling abroad.
but you still need a standard language, one that everyone knows...so that EVEYONE can communicate with everyone...so that news and media can be understood by all.


As for India - I thought they were thriving and part of that is, from what I understand, because they added another language (english) to the multitude already being spoken there. you mean adding a standard language that EVERYONE learns and can use to connect the differant regions through better communication helped that country thrive?
sounds great! so you see my point then...

[Qdrop]

During Roosevelt's tenure as POTUS (1901-1909) the military was segregated and so was every other aspect of life for minoities in the USA. The right to vote had been won for all, but in the South trying to register was akin to walking into the Lion's Den. (Military Academy's have just recently addressed a 25% minority enrollment)

I do agree that becoming a citizen of the USA is not a right. It is a something to be earned and not given away. Once a person takes the oath and becomes an American citizen I don't really give a shit what happens. I cannot force anybody to do anything beyond what is required already by US immigrations and naturalizations. We are a land of laws and rules and from the statistics of the US prison system I see that many nations are represented(!)

They state (http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/immigration/immigration_01.html);

Being able to speak, understand, read, and write simple English during the citizenship interview, unless you have a physical or mental impairment that prevents you from learning English. You may be exempt from this requirement if you are over the age of 50 and have been a permanent resident for over 20 years.

among other things. The wait is 18 months minimun and can be as much as 5 years.

so i think we are in agreement with Teddy, then? eh?

[franscar]

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man 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.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

"We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

-Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

What does "American" mean? Does it mean the same to Teddy as it does to yourself? Or to any number of people on the board.

The English thing is a given definitely, communication is massively important, but other aspects of "American" are, I would guess, at times completely opposing between two different people.

[Qdrop]

What does "American" mean? Does it mean the same to Teddy as it does to yourself? Or to any number of people on the board.


i guess I would typify being "American" as being a citizen of the United States of America, putting nationalism/support of America ahead of any other country, and working to meld into American Culture...not distancing yourself from it.

it has to be more than JUST being a citizen. you have to work to be part of the culture...and to support it above others.

[franscar]

i guess I would typify being "American" as being a citizen of the United States of America, putting nationalism/support of America ahead of any other country, and working to meld into American Culture...not distancing yourself from it.

it has to be more than JUST being a citizen. you have to work to be part of the culture...and to support it above others.

Then I suppose the follow up question would be what is American culture? What, if anything, makes it uniquely American?

[DroppinScience]

I am definitely conflicted when it comes to this sort of stuff. On the one hand, I dig the multiculturalism (afterall, there's some great ethnic restaurants!) and all that, but assimilation is certainly necessary.

While I wouldn't call Canada segregated, there is definitely a lot of "stick to your own" (particularly with immigrant groups) mentality even as we try to be integrated.

East Indians are mostly with other East Indians. Chinese are with Chinese. Arabs are with Arabs. And so on.

I always feel immigrant groups only hanging out with their kind are putting themselves at a deep disadvantage with the larger Canadian culture (and this can all be mirrored to America as well), and we're only going to misunderstand each other.

I'm also conflicted about TR's anti-polyglotism. I do think a standard language is necessary, but I wouldn't abolish the other foreign languages altogether. Multilingualism is always a good thing.

But bottom line: Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty awesome President. Sadly, he'd get nowhere in today's political climate. :(

[STANKY808]

there are tremendous benefits in learning other languages, particularly if you are planning on traveling abroad.
but you still need a standard language, one that everyone knows...so that EVEYONE can communicate with everyone...so that news and media can be understood by all.

you mean adding a standard language that EVERYONE learns and can use to connect the differant regions through better communication helped that country thrive?
sounds great! so you see my point then...

There are benefits that flow from being mulitlingual that have nothing to do with making world travel easier. I can't find a link now, but I have seen studies that show learning a second language increases cognative abliities in other areas of the brain (as is the case with learning music).

And a standard is one thing. An imposed "official" language is another. And from my understanding english laguage education wasn't introduced for use in communication within the borders of India but rather to compete on the world stage. The key in India to me is that english language training is part of the educational process together with technical training that is allowing them to leap forward in the world economy. I guess the choice could have been to try and reduce the number of languages being spoken to one (even if it was english) but they choose to add another one.

You seem to be advocating reducing linguistic diversity in the US by pointing to India and the increase in languages being learned there.

[EN[i]GMA]

that's just so non-pragmatic.
just for the logistics of mass communication in a society this large, you must create a standard language.

I think it'd be best if there were a standard language, yes.

But I don't think it should be mandated by law.


one of THE greatest dividers in countries like India and China are the nearly hundereds of differant dialects.

Yes, but we're talking about 2 languages here.

Hell, some bilingualism would be good for most Americans.

I have very poor Spanish skills, but I could definitely learn, and what I've learned has helped my English immensely.


man, that's just ass backwards.

i suppose this must now digress to debate about the value of nationalism....eh?

I didn't have you pegged as the nationalist type.

[ChrisLove]

I find this whole area very difficult - the very idea of international borders and nationality is pretty abhorent to me. I can never really articulate exactly why tho... I think its because discrimination based on geographical location seemd to be less rational than discrimination on race grounds.

I really hate the idea of pledging loyaty and alligance to one arbitary tax collecting authority over another. On the other hand I enjoy my HDTV and all the luxuries I get due thanks to the legal barrers to entry in my particular labour market that come about due to imigration laws. I didnt earn this, I happened to be born on a particular land mass which resulted in me gettng certain advantages. I think its the uncomfortable confrontation with my own selfishness that troubles me.

[EN[i]GMA]

I find this whole area very difficult - the very idea of international borders and nationality is pretty abhorent to me. I can never really articulate exactly why tho... I think its because discrimination based on geographical location seemd to be less rational than discrimination on race grounds.

I really hate the idea of pledging loyaty and alligance to one arbitary tax collecting authority over another. On the other hand I enjoy my HDTV and all the luxuries I get due thanks to the legal barrers to entry in my particular labour market that come about due to imigration laws. I didnt earn this, I happened to be born on a particular land mass which resulted in me gettng certain advantages. I think its the uncomfortable confrontation with my own selfishness that troubles me.

Actually, that's a pretty good summarization of my view.

Yeah, it might be beneficial to *us* to restrict immigration (Might), but is it the best thing to do, period?

I think helping Mexicans get out of abject poverty is worth reducing American middle class wealth a few percentage points.

Not ideal, maybe not even what will happen, but if it did happen, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing.

The problem stems from an 'us' and 'them' mentality.

I hate to sound like the bleeding heart that I'm not, but, to drop a gratutious Airplane! reference:

The is only one river. There is only one sea.
And it flows through you, and it flows through me.
There is only one people. We are one and the same.
We are all one spirit. We are all one name.
We are the father, mother, daughter and son.
From the dawn of creation, we are one.
We are one.

You get the idea.

I mean, how easy is it for talking heads and twit pundits to make asinine, outrageous statements about how we 'earned' all this, when really, it's entirely a matter of where you were born?

You don't have to work at all and you can be successful in the West. You can work your whole life and get nothing in Mexico and other places.

And these same people (Not invariably conservatives, as one might imagine) are now attempting to destroy any means for a hard working class to move up in wealth, simply because they are part of a, frankly, parasitic class (I'm referring to media personalities here mostly).

Extol the American work ethic while preventing a poor Mexican from picking himself via physical labor, all while you work 3 hours a week on your bullshit chauvanistic television sensory-assualt.

I think this debate is framed in an entirely incorrect perspective, because of the rhetoric of certain ideologues, the, dare I say, seflishness of most people, and the herd-like mentality of both sides of the debate.

I don't see how leftists and rightists can both be against:

Helping the poor

or

Cheap labor.

It's baffling, and more than a little disconcerting.

[D_Raay]

I think this debate is framed in an entirely incorrect perspective, because of the rhetoric of certain ideologues, the, dare I say, seflishness of most people, and the herd-like mentality of both sides of the debate.

I don't see how leftists and rightists can both be against:

Helping the poor

or

Cheap labor.

It's baffling, and more than a little disconcerting.

Well said E. Right on point.

[Funkaloyd]

I understand that some people are proud of their heritage, but at least speak english when in public.
This sounds like the whole "homosexuals are okay with me, as long as they don't shove it in my face by holding hands in public and stuff" argument.

Part of that problem is the fact that you can go about daily life and everyone will cater to you.
If one can get by while speaking another language, then what's the problem?

one of THE greatest dividers in countries like India and China are the nearly hundereds of differant dialects.
And different religions.

[Ace42X]

one of THE greatest dividers in countries like India and China are the nearly hundereds of differant dialects.

That's not really the case, for China at least. Many of the predominant Han Chinese identify themselves within that cultural block as opposed to another, despite their dialects and cultural practices and traditions being closer to some of their non-Han neighbours than more distant Han communities.

Among Han Chinese, there is a wide diversity of distinct cultural and linguistic groups. The differences among regional and linguistic subgroups of Han Chinese are at least as great as those among many European groups. Han Chinese speak many varieties of Chinese spoken languages which are generally labelled as different Chinese dialects although the difference among them can be as great as seen in many European languages. Cultural differences (cuisine, costume, and custom) are equally great. Modern Chinese history provides many examples of conflict, up to the level of small-scale regional wars, between linguistic and regional groups. Thus, the idea of a unified Han Chinese is quite complicated.

Such diversities, however, have not generated exclusive ethnic identities, and distinctions in religion or political affiliation have not reinforced regional differences. Rather, there has been a consistent tendency in Chinese thought and practice to downplay intra-Han distinctions, which are regarded as minor and superficial.

The definition of the Han identity has varied throughout history. Prior to the 20th century, some Chinese-speaking ethnic groups like the Hakka and the Tanka were not universally accepted as Han Chinese, while some non-Chinese speaking peoples, like the Zhuang, were considered Han. Today, Hui Chinese are considered a separate nationality, but aside from their practice of Islam, little distinguishes them from the Han; two Han from different regions might differ more in language, customs, and culture than a neighboring Han and Hui.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese#Internal_diversity

[Qdrop]

There are benefits that flow from being mulitlingual that have nothing to do with making world travel easier. I can't find a link now, but I have seen studies that show learning a second language increases cognative abliities in other areas of the brain (as is the case with learning music). i don't doubt it.

And a standard is one thing. An imposed "official" language is another. And from my understanding english laguage education wasn't introduced for use in communication within the borders of India but rather to compete on the world stage. because english is nearly the standard world language in business.

The key in India to me is that english language training is part of the educational process together with technical training that is allowing them to leap forward in the world economy. I guess the choice could have been to try and reduce the number of languages being spoken to one (even if it was english) but they choose to add another one. yes, because english is pretty much a standard world language in the world of business.
the byproduct of this is that it has helped unify the country under a more standard language.

You seem to be advocating reducing linguistic diversity in the US by pointing to India and the increase in languages being learned there.
well, yes..an increase in language...by adding ONE standard language that everyone learned.

it all points to establishing a standard language...to unify and simplify. logistics.

[Qdrop]

GMA']
Yes, but we're talking about 2 languages here.

Hell, some bilingualism would be good for most Americans.

I have very poor Spanish skills, but I could definitely learn, and what I've learned has helped my English immensely. well, yeah...we certainly are no where near China or India in regional dialects and languages....
but the point remains....a standard language is GOOD.

it's no racist or ethnocentric....it's pragmatic.


I didn't have you pegged as the nationalist type. these viens pump RED WHITE AND BLUE, buddy!

but really....i am a nationalist..i would say.

[Qdrop]

GMA']Actually, that's a pretty good summarization of my view.

Yeah, it might be beneficial to *us* to restrict immigration (Might), but is it the best thing to do, period?

I think helping Mexicans get out of abject poverty is worth reducing American middle class wealth a few percentage points.

Not ideal, maybe not even what will happen, but if it did happen, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing.

The problem stems from an 'us' and 'them' mentality.

I hate to sound like the bleeding heart that I'm not, but, to drop a gratutious Airplane! reference:

The is only one river. There is only one sea.
And it flows through you, and it flows through me.
There is only one people. We are one and the same.
We are all one spirit. We are all one name.
We are the father, mother, daughter and son.
From the dawn of creation, we are one.
We are one.

You get the idea.

I mean, how easy is it for talking heads and twit pundits to make asinine, outrageous statements about how we 'earned' all this, when really, it's entirely a matter of where you were born?

You don't have to work at all and you can be successful in the West. You can work your whole life and get nothing in Mexico and other places.

And these same people (Not invariably conservatives, as one might imagine) are now attempting to destroy any means for a hard working class to move up in wealth, simply because they are part of a, frankly, parasitic class (I'm referring to media personalities here mostly).

Extol the American work ethic while preventing a poor Mexican from picking himself via physical labor, all while you work 3 hours a week on your bullshit chauvanistic television sensory-assualt.

I think this debate is framed in an entirely incorrect perspective, because of the rhetoric of certain ideologues, the, dare I say, seflishness of most people, and the herd-like mentality of both sides of the debate.

I don't see how leftists and rightists can both be against:

Helping the poor

or

Cheap labor.

It's baffling, and more than a little disconcerting.

that's not really the point of this thread at all.

it's not about halting immigration or anything of the sort.

the topic is assimilation, really.
subtopics of nationalism and creating unifying/pragmatic standards of communication.

[Qdrop]

That's not really the case, for China at least. Many of the predominant Han Chinese identify themselves within that cultural block as opposed to another, despite their dialects and cultural practices and traditions being closer to some of their non-Han neighbours than more distant Han communities.


eh...but even that article points to language as a divider.

but, yeah...i see your point...china has larger cultural issues that divide, more so than dialect.

[ASsman]

(sigh) , oh God.

[Documad]

I agree with Q on most of what he said.

You're an American first, and a wherever you came from or a whatever your religion is second. American citizenship is a privilege and you should be ready to make sacrifices and take responsibility if you're going to enjoy the privilege. Frankly, the immigrants I've known who have become citizens didn't need to be told this.

[Qdrop]

edit: never mind.

those were from Rense.com....
that site is trash.

[Monsieur Decuts]

Carlos Mencia said it best that mexicans can't get good jobs cause there its job not yob.

I believe that assimilation is important for making immigrants succesful members of society. Allowing certains races/religions to congregate into their own groups is self inflicted segregation. This gives the immigrant a sense of security, and no need to learn english, or the american culture. This severly limits the successes they can have within their communities. If an immigrant is chasing the american dream and we don't properly teach them what it takes to get it, we're only providing them broken wings to fly with.

An important rule of thumb for starting a new job is to figure out all the acronyms and little phrases like "going forward" and "ducks in a row" that the place uses so you'll fit in right away, same thigns seems to apply to cultures.

On the other hand I recognize that not everyone has the same apptitudes, so there will be many who just can't assimilate, and that being isolated in a small commuinity with a low paying job is a thousand times better then where they are coming from.