They've All Come To Look For America
But are those flooding our borders willing to become Americans?
The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, but that doesn’t mean that immigration has been nothing but sunshines and lollipops. Over the decades, the immigration debate has drawn a contentious line between Republicans and Democrats. More recently, instead of meaningful Congressional legislation, presidential executive orders have been used. Today, we see an open border policy by the Biden administration with sanctuary cities unable to keep up with the number of illegal migrants and varying views are creating noise without solutions.
A Brief History of Immigration in the United States
The Hyphenated American by J.S. Pughe (1899)
Immigrants to the United States until the mid-to-late 19th century merely sailed here, sauntered through Castle Garden in New York City, and tried their luck at a new life. Most came from western and northern Europe. Meanwhile, the Gold Rush of the 1840s brought a new Chinese population to California.
Individual states created their own immigration laws and decided the fate of their own immigrant populations after the Civil War. After all, Reconstruction caused calamity as many states were in financial hardship. Thus, adding people who had no means of employment was an obstacle.
Growing pains were felt. For example, there were skirmishes between the Protestants mostly from Germany and the Catholics mostly from Ireland. A push toward a federal immigration system came to fruition as California dealt with violence between white and Chinese immigrants over jobs, as well as only Chinese miners having to pay a special tax to mine for gold.
As pressure mounted, the federal government was given immigration responsibility after a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in 1875 (Henderson v. New York) stating that the Foreign Commerce Clause gave immigration powers to the federal government. The same year, the Supreme Court once again ruled that the federal government was the sole arbiter of immigration in the case Chy Lung v. Freeman. Thus, in both of these decisions, any state legislation regarding immigration evaporated.
The creation of a checkpoint for new, European immigrants became Ellis Island (1892). Once a ship sailed to Ellis Island, no one left the ship without a quick health screening. On board regardless of class, those that seemed ill or were leaving their home country due to legal reasons were sent to Ellis Island. Otherwise, it was assumed that anyone who sailed in first class and second class had enough money avoid becoming a drain on cities, and they skipped Ellis Island altogether.
Those in steerage, however, had to go through Ellis Island for more thorough background and health checks. Doctors could do a “six second check” of a person’s health, and interpreters of all languages were on hand to go through twenty-nine questions regarding basic information like a person’s name and place of origin. If all went well, most immigrants were out of Ellis Island within five hours, ready to start their lives anew.
According to the Tenement Museum, eventually, “each immigrant [needed] $25 with them in an effort to make sure that the immigrant would not become a ward of the state” and “each was required to have someone to meet them upon arrival, once again to prove that they would not eventually become a ‘drain on the tax dollars.’”
The West Coast’s version of Ellis Island called Angel Island didn’t get its start until 1910, after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Alien Contract Labor Laws of 1885 and 1887.
Chinese immigrants were willing to work for lower wages. Though lower wages were a form of discrimination, Chinese workers were still making more money than they could back in China. The fact that the Chinese accepted being hired for lower wages angered non-Chinese workers who lacked employment.
Consequently, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first time the United States regulated who could immigrate to our country. It wasn’t until WWII, that restrictions on Chinese immigration were lifted (due to China being an ally), but the number allowed into the United States was limited to 105 per annum.
The term “melting pot” originated with a play of the same name written name by Jewish author and playwright Israel Zangwill whose parents left eastern Europe and moved to London. His play, The Melting Pot, was seen and embraced by President Teddy Roosevelt, who agreed with the idea of assimilation. Though never immigrating to the United States, Zangwill wrote, “America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians – into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American” (Theodore Roosevelt Center).
Immigrants who came to the United States looked for a better life and were proud to call America their home. They did, indeed, assimilate into pro-American beliefs and traditions while holding fast to their languages and traditions at home or in church. However, they were American first and followed our laws, made sure their children learned English, and the children were educated with a firm understanding of American history and patriotism. Without a love for our country, we couldn't survive.
Venezuelan Immigration Plight
Keeping history in mind, there were two major news stories this week. The one that got the most coverage appeared in the Chicago Tribune article “Migrant family journeys back to Venezuela, more leaving Chicago as winter looms: ‘The American Dream doesn’t exist anymore.’”
The article dealt with the Castejon family from Venezuela who had been living in Chicago for the past five months. The Chicago Tribune reported that they, like other migrants, wanted a better life for their family in America. However, the hardship of sleeping on police station floors, Michael Castejon’s inability to get a well-paying job without a work permit, and the family’s inability to get their children into schools caused them to make the decision to return to Venezuela.
As Micheal told reporter Laura Rodriguez Presa, “The American Dream doesn’t exist anymore. There’s nothing here for us.”
What Mr. Castejon hadn’t realized is that illegally crossing a border for the American Dream will cause more heartache than benefit. It isn’t the 1800s anymore, and immigration laws have changed. But it isn’t entirely Castejon’s fault that things turned sour. Remember candidate Biden said, “I would in fact make sure that there is we immediately surge to the border all those seeking asylum. They deserve to be heard. That’s who we are. We are a nation that says if you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come.”
When he took the oath of office, surge they did. So far under his leadership, there has been just under five million illegals cross our border. It’s unclear how this thrust of unvetted people is keeping with Biden’s oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Yet, at this moment, there is also an oddity happening in the White House. Last month, the Biden administration announced that Venezuelan illegal immigrants were going to be returned to Venezuela. Why now? Why Venezuelans?
Venezuela is under a dictatorship and poverty is rampant, which is the main reason people are fleeing. Suddenly, the number of illegals coming from Venezuela needs to be controlled, according to the Biden administration. In a report by CNN, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “Under the Los Angeles Declaration … we’re charged with taking coordinated actions to try to stabilize flows, to expand regular pathways, to humanely manage all of our borders. Repatriations are a key piece to this balanced approach.” But Venezuela was never a country part of these “non-legally binding commitments.” I encourage you to read the Los Angeles Declaration at whitehouse.gov. It’s an eye opener.
Let’s look at what’s really going on. It’s an election year and our borders are a key issue to voters; the Biden administration is attempting to curb the numbers of illegals in the United States starting with those whose numbers are supposedly higher than any other—Venezuelans.
Everything is political. The U.S. hoped that easing sanctions on Venezuela would pressure them to have fair elections, allowing opposition candidates on the ballot. That never materialized. Oil production also slowed even after our restrictions on Venezuela were lifted, and the U.S. made a deal to get oil from Venezuela rather than drill our own. Threats to send Venezuelans back may be yet another ploy to apply pressure to Venezuelan leadership.
For those that don’t see politics in humanitarian efforts, I direct you to the Gov. Gavin Newsom video (above) discussing the clean-up of San Francisco. San Francisco was able to clear the homeless/migrant tents from sidewalks all over the city to make sure communist Chinese leader Xi Jinping could be given the respect he deserves.
If they could do that for a dignitary, why couldn’t this have been done for the citizens who have had to step over bodies to get into stores or go to work? No one seems to know where the migrants were placed. Hopefully, this is not Soylent Green.
The same will happen in Chicago for the Democratic Convention. Spare me the humanitarianism of the Democratic Party. The city’s homeless and migrants are political pawns.
Assimilation Versus Integration
Our federal immigration process used to be concerned with assimilation and ensured those who came were not a strain on tax payer wallets. Immigrants arrived in America to become American and have a better life. Once again, Teddy Roosevelt embraced the melting pot idea in a speech to the Knights of Columbus in 1916 excerpted by Re-Imagining Migration:
“…We represent many different race strains. Our ancestors came from many different Old World nationalities. It will spell ruin to this nation if these nationalities remain separated from one another instead of being assimilated to the new and larger American life.
…The children and our children’s children of all of us have to live here in this land together. Our children’s children will intermarry, one another, your children’s children, friends, and mine. Even if they wished, they could not remain citizens of foreign countries….The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to breed a spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens.”
Teddy Roosevelt was correct, as we can see today with Palestinian uprisings in the West. They have not become American, British, Australian, etc. But those who magnify a lack of assimilation are labeled and forced to resign. This brings us to the second major news story this week: UK’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman got fired.
Suella Braverman gave a sobering speech in September to the American Enterprise Institute explaining the harms of mass migration to the West.
In her speech, Braverman pointed out, “Just as it’s a basic rule of history, that nations which cannot defend their borders will not long survive. It is a basic rule of politics, that political systems which cannot control their borders will not maintain the consent of the people, and thus not long endure. You do not have to be a clairvoyant to see how might this all unfold.” So for all those who are calling for closing our borders and are being subjected to being called racist or extreme MAGAs, Braverman is on your side pointing out truths.
She continued to push back against the liberal ideology of open borders by pointing out four unsettled areas: civic concerns, practical concerns, safety concerns, and democratic concerns.
Civically, Braverman maintained that over a decade ago leaders like Angela Merkel and David Cameron pointed out the drawbacks of uncontrolled migration. Braverman stated,
“Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed, because it allowed people to come to our society, and live parallel lives in it. They could be in the society, but not of the society. And in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of our society.”
If a country cannot have its immigrant citizens think of themselves as American, British, German, etc., we cannot expect them to feel a kinship with fellow citizens. They won’t feel any patriotism or obligation to serve their nation.
Secondly, practically speaking, we can see in our major cities that there is no infrastructure in place to deal with the masses of people coming across our borders. There isn’t enough housing, not enough jobs, not enough schools, not enough of anything. All that would take time to reconcile. Yet with people living on the streets, time is of the essence. Mayor Pete can’t handle the normal infrastructure issues we face. Nor has he been able to deal with the infrastructure needs of illegal immigrants.
Then, there is the question of security. What do we know about those crossing our borders illegally in droves? Our cities are already dealing with crimes such as rape, theft, prostitution, and homicides. Beyond these are the very real threats of terrorism. In September, NBC News ran a piece entitled “Number of people on terrorist watchlist stopped at southern U.S. border has risen.” But those are the ones stopped. What about the ones who got away? With the October 7 Hamas terror attacks against Israel, we are all on high alert.
Lastly, Braverman points out the democratic view of unfettered immigration and open borders. Citizens overwhelmingly are against open border policies. As she said, “Who we allow to come into our country and become one of us is a fundamental issue. Without public consent, immigration is illegitimate. Dismissing as idiots or bigots, those members of the public who express legitimate concerns, is not merely unfair, it is dangerous.”
We see how desperate our governors are becoming when their pleas to curb illegal immigration are met with silence. Governor Abbott of Texas took matters into his own hands and bused illegals to cities whose mayors called their areas sanctuary cities. Chicago is but one of many.
Yet, Mayor Johnson is putting the lives of migrants above the lives of the poor, legal citizens of Chicago. His placement of migrants—especially on the South Side— is causing anger and protests to no avail. At the same time, he and Mayor Adams of New York are expecting Washington, D.C., to give billions of dollars (i.e. our taxes) to help with the migrant crisis no citizen wanted anyway, which opposes our early immigration laws to not hold American people to account financially. But, truly, isn’t money what this is all about for bankrupt cities?
Suella Braverman; London Portrait Photoqraphers
As strong as this speech was, Braverman’s calls for a solution to the illegal immigration problem wasn’t what got her fired.
It was when she penned an op-ed for this month’s The Times in which she called out London police for treating pro-Palestinian marchers with kid gloves and for allowing hate speech to flourish that the ire of the ruling class had enough. Adding insult to injury, her opinion piece was not approved of by 10 Downing Street, thus causing political embarrassment. It was also felt that her article has stoked anti-police sentiment. According to Time magazine her strongly-worded writing is being linked to violence between pro-Palestinian protesters and those who are part of the English Defense League (“a far-right, Islamaphobic group”) resulting in 145 arrests and 9 injured officers.
And once again, we see that politics is being put ahead of common sense. Braverman’s job is akin to Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security. Unlike Mayorkas, Braverman is disturbed that the West is losing its way. She should be able to discuss what she sees as threats to British democracy and politically correct policing, for she is providing key information for the safety of British citizens. Instead, the British government is more concerned with her going rogue, wants her to tone down her language, and wants to muzzle her.
How Do We Move Forward?
In America, we don’t care where you come from as long as you come legally, positively contribute to our American society, and become American. If, however, you are of the belief that multiple legal and cultural systems can coexist side by side, then there is a conflict. For example, U.S. federal, state, and local laws trump sharia law without question.
But what steps, if any, can we take when there are pro-Palestinian demonstrators calling for the deaths of all Jewish populations? What do we do when these sentiments aren’t only because of a person’s place of origin?
College campuses are the hotbeds of hate as students across all racial and cultural spectrums are embodying antisemitism. Freedom of speech and assembly is essential to democracy, but we need to vet our teachers/professors before giving them a job. For example, former Weather Underground domestic terrorists shouldn’t have been allowed professorships. Yet, that’s what happened. At this rate, Ted Kaczynski could be a math professor at MIT teaching remotely.
There is no better place to indoctrinate our kids than on a college campus. They are away from home, learning from liberal professors, and parroting their teachings. Colleges have become cults.
For decades we have seen the undermining of institutions with an emphasis on social justice. Though Democrats will state that their intentions are to help the vulnerable of the world, the statistics show that the majority of Latino voters vote Democratic, as do newly naturalized citizens. Democrat politicians have an incentive to keep the borders flowing, and, conversely, Republican politicians are incentivized to turn off the spigot.
United States immigration began as a safe haven for those from Europe who needed a new start. Judeo-Christians assimilated into a love of America and raised their children with the same patriotism. As we opened up to other countries, initially, that same assimilation continued. But once assimilation morphed into multiculturalism and integration, America became a place of scorn and grievance. John F. Kennedy’s, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” has been forgotten.
Will there ever be meaningful immigration legislation? Not until we elect statesmen to our political classes whose primary goal is the safety and security of the United States. That will fall on us voters. Until then, immigration will continue be a presidential executive order football to America’s detriment.
Great analysis. People are afraid to speak their mind because they will be labeled the racist read the poem by Pastor Martin “First they came.”
https://music.apple.com/us/album/america/203303421?i=203303587
Also a nice song!