I teach in a couple of colleges in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. I got an e-mail from a student which gave me Roosevelt's definition of what it means to be American.
I don't know where the student stands on immigration or the current debate. This is my response to the e-mail, and old Tedday.
"I was reading about immigration and found this quote. Thought you might like it.
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he 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 this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907"
My response:
I've read that before. I think it is too limiting and simplistic a definition of being "American," but is valuable for looking at the issue of immigration. Its value comes from the questions it raises: What does becoming an American "in every facet" mean? How many facets are there? What does "assimilation" mean today? Do we tell Jews to quit supporting Israel? The Irish to stop supporting Irish independence? What do we tell other groups who still have a huge interest in what goes on in their birthplaces or countries of ancestry? Aren't divided loyalties the norm for humanity, rather than a rarity?
What about native Americans, who spoke something other than English for centuries before English became the "official" language? Ought they to be forced off the reservations and into northern european culture? By his definition, are today's Indians behaving like Americans (Indian land is technically foreign soil)? Is Teddy's perspective imprisoned by his temporal and cultural milieu? How was his worldview influenced by the "common knowledge" of the times? Such bits of "common knowledge," easily documented with historical sources, were that Jews were greedy and untrustworthy, that blacks were inferior, and that women were incapable of making informed political choices. And how can we define the "American people" in any monolithic sense--as Teddy tries but fails to do?
As usual, I see many aspects of this issue--and no simplistic solution will suffice. Politics is often the art of selling the citizens a reductionist, "easy," "quick-fix," "feel good" solution to problems too complex to be quickly addressed. As I try to get across to students, "existence" is complicated.
I see this issue as a giant red herring. Historically, the issue gets used again and again--always for the same purpose: Take the citizens' eyes off how they're getting ripped off and screwed by corporate/private interests and crooked politicians. It's a good thing for governments that human behavior is so easily predicted:)