“Should Immigration Require Assimilation?” by Tom Gjelten explores the complex dimensions of what it means to be “American” through the experience of one Salvadoran immigrant and several theorists’ views of assimilation. Gjelten focuses specifically on the experience of Hispanic immigrants to the United States, as well as the political and cultural aspects of “American identity” (Gjelten 4). I agree with Gjentle’s assertion that what it means to be an American is not as simple as citizenship, but I do not agree with his assessment that “ ‘Americanization’ brought certain obligations” (Gjelten 5).
I agree that American identity is composed of multiple facets. What we consider to be “American” incorporates a number of political and cultural aspects, which are central to the nation’s approach, but ultimately, all are rooted in freedom. All Americans are free to maintain cultural identity and traditions, as long as they do not violate the law, which is the only real “obligation.” Similarly, all Americans have political freedom in the same respect. While there are some immigrants who may come from other countries with differences in politcal practices, this does not mean that the United States has a common political culture. The naturalization ceremony mentioned in Gjelten’s article included the suggestions to the immigrants who became American citizens to “take part in elections and otherwise fulfill their civic responsibilities” (4), and Gjelten suggests this would demonstrate that they had embraced American ideology, but American ideology includes the right to vote, not the requirement to do so.
I disagree with Gjelten’s statement that immigrants who take the necessary steps to obtain citizenship “go(es) beyond the intent to live and work in the United States simply for money” (2), as many immigrants face obstacles to obtaining citizenship, but are not in the United States only for money. Immigrants are required to take citizenship tests, which means they must read, speak, and write in English, and answer questions about American history and government, which many Americans could not do. Gjelten also cites “poverty and low educational attainment” (3) as obstacles to the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants. Many immigrants also become citizens so they may enjoy all the rights and privileges of naturalization, such as voting in elections and receiving social services.
I disagree with Gjelten’s implication that “ ‘Americanization’ brought certain obligations.” He explains that immigrants had to adapt to American culture and values, which included living in diverse communities and learning to respect the different backgrounds and cultures of their neighbors (5). If this is the case, how do we explain the current political climate demonstrated by some of the candidates for the American presidency when they give speeches demanding the restriction of immigration based solely on ethnic background or religious affiliation? Gjelten’s article mentions that Lee Greenwood, the singer of “God Bless the USA,” said in 2010, “If America changes to the point that it is no longer a Christian nation and no longer protects itself from aliens who come and go, then it won’t be America anymore” (1). That is not the open-minded spirit represented by Gjelten’s “obligation” of respecting diversity. How can we believe it to be true when we use terminology such as “tolerance” and “acceptance” as if diversity is something to be endured rather than celebrated? In addition, there are opportunities for newly naturalized immigrants to continue to speak their native languages more often than English and continue to observe more of their native traditions than American ones. Such diversity is, in fact, more “American” in some ways than assimilation and does not create additional obligations for newly naturalized citizens, except to adapt just enough to meet their needs.
I disagree with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. who asserted that America’s goal “was not to preserve old cultures, but to forge a new American one” (5). This statement contradicts itself, as a new American culture or identity is composed of the old cultures its immigrants bring. In this case, it is always changing, and cannot be identified as one particular concept. One point that Schlesinger made that I do agree with is “the fear of the Other is among the most instinctive human reactions” (6). However, if American identity is in part composed of unity, the “Other” should not exist. Such a fear only comes about through ignorance. Are we not one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
Tom Gjelten identifies the challenges of “an American political culture that guarantees freedoms but also respects diversity” (6). Assimilation should not be the goal of the United States in its approach to immigration because it conflicts with what it means to be American. The foundation of American identity is the entitlement to freedom for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or class. In 2006, the Task Force on New Americans attempted to address policies of “political assimilation the group defined as ‘embracing the principles of American democracy, identifying with US history, and communicating in English’” but I believe most natural-born Americans would not define it the same way. Gjelten cites the statement of Robert Putnam, “the challenge is best met not by making ‘them’ like ‘us,’ but rather by creating a new more capacious sense of ‘we.’” (6). I agree with this statement, as the collaboration between all Americans is essential to preventing the racial and ethnic division created by the singular concept of assimilation to a white Anglo-Saxon vision of what it means to be American.
Works Cited
Gjelten, Tom. "Should Immigration Require Assimilation?" The Atlantic 3 Oct. 2015: 1-6. Print.
