Jewish World Review Jan. 12, 2004 / 18 Teves, 5764

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The decline of assimilation | The confusions and uncertainties of President Bush's immigration plan were nicely captured in the New York Times's descriptions of it. On Wednesday, a front-page Times headline announced: "Plan Effectively Offers Amnesty — Fight Is Seen in Congress." On Thursday, the paper's lead editorial emphasized that "the president's guidelines clearly do not constitute a sweeping amnesty. . . . It is a long way from that."

Obviously, Bush's proposal raises more questions than it answers. It would temporarily legalize the status of millions of illegal but employed immigrants by making them eligible for renewable three-year work permits. How often could those permits be renewed? What would happen when they expired? No one seems to know.

The president says that under his plan, illegal immigrants would be allowed to apply for permanent legal residence — a green card — and eventual citizenship "in the normal way." On the other hand, he also says they will be given no advantage over would-be immigrants who haven't broken the law. Considering how long the wait for a green card can be, doesn't that mean that illegals signing up for the new program would have no realistic hope of qualifying for permanent residence? And that being the case, won't many of them slip back into illegality after their temporary permit expires? Or simply avoid the program — and the danger of entanglement with immigration officials — altogether?

Give the president credit for addressing an issue that most politicians have refused to touch — how to handle the 10 million or so illegal immigrants living in the United States, most of them fearful of being deported and therefore easy to exploit. Credit him, too, with acknowledging that homeland security is badly compromised when hundreds of thousands of people enter the country illegally each year. He is still a long way from showing that he has come up with a proposal that can actually solve both of those problems.

What to do about illegal immigration, how to control the borders, whether the number of lawful immigrants permitted each year should be raised or lowered, how to deal with refugees and asylum-seekers, whether preference should be given to immigrants who possess certain skills — these are the questions around which public discussion of immigration in this country usually revolves. Almost never raised, at least not openly, is a subject that is ultimately more important than any of the others: What is the best way to turn immigrants into Americans?

Donate to JWR

The answer is assimilation — or, as it used to be called in the United States 80 or 90 years ago, "Americanization." Assimilation is the key to preserving national unity and fostering common civic values in a nation that comprises hundreds of ethnic backgrounds and millions of foreign-born residents. It is the most effective mechanism for making real the motto E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one. The world over, ethnic difference plays out as ethnic hatred and violence. Yet the people of the United States, the most ethnically diverse nation on earth, have been able to live together in relative harmony and tolerance. How? Through assimilation.

For generations, immigrants knew from the day they arrived that they were expected to become "good Americans." That meant learning English as quickly as possible and accepting it as the national tongue. It meant getting a job and being a productive member of society. It meant celebrating American democracy and sharing in American pride. It meant becoming a US citizen, and holding that citizenship in high esteem.

None of this implied that immigrants or their children had to erase every trace of their ancestral culture. Quite the contrary — as the world's great international melting pot, America has been unusually willing to accommodate foreign customs, dishes, holidays, languages. "Assimilation does not require immigrants to surrender their ethnic heritage," Peter Salins wrote in Assimilation, American Style (1997), which argued convincingly that assimilation is critical to America's cohesion and vitality. "It is about people of different racial, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds believing they are irrevocably part of the same national family."

But in recent decades, the assimilationist ethic has been badly undermined. The rise of corrosive "multiculturalism," the denigration of American history and values, the growth of the welfare state, the affirmative-action mindset that assigns preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity — all of these have weakened the assimilationist creed. And they have done so just as the influx of immigrants has surged to levels not seen since early in the 20th century.

With the decline of assimilation has come an increase in ethnic militancy — and a growing hostility to immigrants. Both were on display in the wake of President Bush's address: Hispanic activists condemned him for doing too little and anti-immigration groups blasted him for doing too much. As the immigration debate heats up, so will the acrimony and distrust that the decline of assimilation has engendered. That, more than any other, is the immigration issue we should be focused on.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

Jeff Jacoby Archives

© 2002, Boston Globe