Wednesday, April 25 , 2018, 11:14 pm | Fair 54º

 
 
 
 

Diane Dimond: Historic Lessons to Guide the Immigration Debate

The political divide in the United States has completely paralyzed us. Generally speaking, half of us think one way; the other half believes just the opposite. Conflicts regarding a whole array of legal issues continue with no end in sight.

Not even the U.S. Supreme Court could decide what this nation should do to get a grip on its immigration problems.

The high court recently deadlocked 4-4 on the issue of whether President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration, which would have protected millions of undocumented people from being deported, was constitutional.

Minus the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, the best the court could do was a tie, a split just like the rest of us.

It’s time to look back to a less partisan time when questioning how to control the flow of immigrants into this country was not met with an automatic cry of “Racist!”; a time when community leaders and political leaders were focused on what was best for America and its citizens. How about we take a lesson from the past?

In 1853, abolitionist and author Frederick Douglas wrote of the disruptive dislocation immigrants caused American workers, especially those of color, saying, “The old employments by which we have heretofore gained our livelihood, are gradually, and it may be inevitably, passing into other hands.

“Every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived immigrant, whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better title to the place,” he wrote.

Francis Walker, an early president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote about immigration in June 1896, saying, “Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril.”

I’m not sure, but I don’t think anyone called Douglas or Walker racist for their opinions on the impact of immigration. Clearly they were patriots.

In 1919, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “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.”

But he was clear that immigrants had responsibilities upon entering our country:

“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.”

In his first message to Congress in December 1923, President Calvin Coolidge said: “American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.”

Even back in the Roaring ’20s there were calls to keep good track of who entered our country.

“We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens,” Coolidge told the nation in the first ever radio broadcast of a presidential address. “Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.”

The point here is, when you process today’s fraught debate about immigration, remember that it’s all bathed in politics.

Republicans want to appear law-and-order tough. Democrats want to appear compassionate and win over the someday votes of those here illegally.

There’s no evidence that either side really wants an end to the immigration controversy that gives them guaranteed media time.

In looking back for definitive wisdom on the issue I could find no better quote than this one from 1915, again from Roosevelt:

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. ... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

Look around. We are engaged in a never-ending squabble that decides nothing and overlooks what is truly best for the country. When do we get serious?

As it says on the base of the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”

But I say bring them to our land in an orderly and legal fashion. If they are dissatisfied with our rules, they can choose to live somewhere else.

Diane Dimond is the author of Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case. Contact her at [email protected], follow her on Twitter: @DiDimond, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Maestro, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover, Debit

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >