being an american citizen essay

• Immigration

The Complicated Truth About What U.S. Citizenship Means Today

T he first time I saw the Statue of Liberty was 25 years ago, from a noisy ferry that brought me and hundreds of other eager tourists across New York Harbor. Back then I was a foreign student, in Manhattan for three days to attend an academic conference on linguistics. I had only one afternoon to devote to sightseeing, and faced with the choice of which landmark to visit, I settled immediately on Ellis Island. The site loomed large in my imagination, likely because of its romantic portrayal in the American movies I had grown up watching. I ambled through the stately inspection room, where original chandeliers cast their pale light, sat for a few minutes on the wooden benches, then went inside the exhibit rooms, filled with artifacts documenting the arrival of immigrants.

I still remember the jolt of surprise I felt when I came across a portrait of three Moroccan men and a little boy, all clad in national dress–cloak, djellaba, cross-body bag, leather slippers. It was a trace of a history I didn’t know existed. After the surprise wore off, I began to wonder about their names, their pasts, their families, their reasons for emigrating. Years later, researching this picture online, I discovered that the photographer, an employee of the Executive Division of Immigration, had scribbled “Arab jugglers” on the back of the print. These were performers, then, seeking fame or fortune here. They forged new identities and became Americans, just like the other 12 million immigrants and refugees who passed through Ellis Island from 1882 to 1954. Or at least, that is how the story goes: America was formed from huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

As I walked around the exhibit rooms at the Ellis Island immigration museum, it never occurred to me that someday I would become an immigrant too, and eventually a citizen. At the time, my goal had been to complete a graduate degree in linguistics and return to Morocco. But my life took an unexpected turn when I met and fell in love with an American. I said yes to him, and yes to staying here. Years passed, during which I learned more about the country I now called home: its charms and foibles, its culture and history, its claims to being a “nation of immigrants.” And I came to understand that, like any origin story, this one leaves out inconvenient details.

The boundaries of Americanness, which seem so elastic in the myth of a “nation of immigrants,” have in fact been very rigid–and always, always contested. At the founding of the United States, American citizenship was available exclusively to “free white persons.” It took decades of struggle, and a bloody civil war, before citizenship was extended to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. Indigenous people, who were members of sovereign nations, did not have full access to citizenship until 1924. And for much of this country’s history, a slew of race-based immigration laws, like the Chinese Exclusion Act, prevented most immigrants from outside Western Europe from coming to the U.S. or claiming U.S. citizenship.

It is tempting to think that this ugly history is behind us. Yet even a glance at current headlines makes it clear how deeply entrenched white-supremacist ideas about Americanness remain. The Trump Administration announced in 2019 that it would cut the number of refugees the U.S. will resettle in 2020 to no more than 18,000, the lowest number since the program was created 40 years ago. These refugees come principally from Asia, Africa and Latin America, which is to say they often come from countries the President has frequently disparaged. Ken Cuccinelli, the acting head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has long been an opponent of birthright citizenship and last fall told reporters that he doesn’t believe a constitutional amendment would be needed to end it. And Stephen Miller, the White House aide who has long echoed white-nationalist talking points and who is widely credited with being the architect of the Muslim ban, has pushed for sweeping changes to immigration laws that would favor people who speak English.

There are also rhetorical clues from this Administration and its supporters about who gets to be a “real” American. Last summer, Donald Trump called on Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib to “go back” to the “crime-infested places” from which they came. (All but Omar were born in the U.S.) More recently, conservative cable hosts like Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade insinuated that Alexander Vindman–an official at the National Security Council who testified that the President had asked the leader of Ukraine to investigate a political rival in exchange for military aid–might not be entirely loyal to the U.S. because he was an immigrant. It didn’t matter that Vindman was an active-duty officer in the U.S. Army; his allegiance was called into question.

Being American isn’t just a state of being, whether native or acquired. It’s a relationship between an individual and the nation-state. To be an American means, among other things, to have the right to vote in state and federal elections, to have protection from unreasonable searches, to be free to speak or worship or assemble without government interference. In the past, these rights, protections and liberties were not granted equally to all, and they still aren’t today. For instance, millions of formerly incarcerated people in states like Alabama, Kentucky, Florida and Mississippi have lost the right to vote and are therefore shut out of the democratic process. This has vastly disproportionate effects on black men. By comparison, Vermont and Maine, the two whitest states in the union, allow both incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people to vote. Citizenship is supposed to be an equalizer, yet in many ways it still functions as a tiered system that mirrors past racial hierarchies.

Four years ago, while I was visiting New York for a literary event, I took my daughter and niece to see the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. It was a cloudy day in June, but the air was thick with humid heat. Both girls were excited about seeing the national landmarks; both undertook ancestry searches at the interactive exhibits. Although neither site was new to me any longer, I felt just as moved as the first time I’d seen them. There is something deeply seductive about these symbols. Even with the awareness of America’s history of colonial expansion and white supremacy, the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is still a potent lure.

I live with this contradiction every day, with the knowledge that the bleak past and the better future meet in the present moment. Citizenship is both an idea and an ideal, the journey from one to the other a measure of the nation’s progress. I wish this journey could be taken in a giant leap, even as I fear it will be walked slowly, fearfully, and with many steps back along the way. Yet I keep the faith. Perhaps it’s because I’m a novelist, whose work involves constant use of the imagination. Or perhaps it’s because I’m an immigrant, whose vantage point grants the privilege to look at the country from the inside and the outside. Either way, I know that promise is the best catalyst for progress.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Donald Trump Won
• The Best Inventions of 2024
• Why Sleep Is the Key to Living Longer
• Robert Zemeckis Just Wants to Move You
• How to Break 8 Toxic Communication Habits
• Nicola Coughlan Bet on Herself—And Won
• Why Vinegar Is So Good for You
• Meet TIME's Newest Class of Next Generation Leaders

Contact us at [email protected]

• 2024 Elections •

In his farewell address to the American people, President George Washington proclaimed in 1796, “Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American , which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism , more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Although Washington was trying to instill the idea of nationhood into a still-forming nation of thirteen disparate colonies, his words set a precedent for contested notions of “Americanism” and “patriotism.” As data from the Spring 2020 Harvard Public Opinion Project poll shows, young people across the nation approach these two terms with varying definitions and levels of support. This variation, informed by a long history of racism and xenophobia, reveals that there is a major disconnect in whether or not members do feel as equal “citizens … of a common country.” 

Support for patriotism has declined broadly over young Americans across the past two decades. According to the HPOP poll, the proportion of young Americans ages 18-29 identifying themselves as patriotic has decreased by nearly 30 percentage points, falling from 89% in 2002 to 61% in the present day. In fact, more young people have even expressed outright aversion to the label — the number of young Americans who identified as “not at all patriotic” spiked up 10 points from nearly zero at the start of the millennium to 12% in 2020. These trends reflect the shifting views of younger Americans compared to their peers from past decades and speak to a decline in their identification as “patriotic.” 

However, even among the young generation studied, self-assessed levels of patriotism vary across political parties. Young Republicans are significantly more likely to identify as patriotic than young Democrats, with 86% of young Republicans identifying as patriotic compared to 56% of young Democrats. Of the young Republican respondents, 41% call themselves “very patriotic,” compared to only 11% among young Democrats. This data suggests that the Republican and Democratic parties differ in both the quantity and potency of patriotism among their supporters. 

Underlying these partisan differences is a historical shift that has made the Democratic Party increasingly left-wing and the Republican Party right-wing over the course of the past century. Prior to the 1930s, Democrats who were predominantly concentrated in the South and southeast U.S. held hardline beliefs against Black Americans and fiercely defended states’ rights with limited centralized authority. Gradually, northern Democrats steered away from Southern Democrats’ alienation of Black Americans, initiating the realignment of Black voters in the 1920s (especially as the Republican Party continued to dismiss civil rights). 

The Great Depression and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure during the 1930s provided the impetus for the Republican and Democratic parties to switch, with the Democratic Party’s New Deal offering social welfare policies that sought to address the failing economy that disproportionately affected Black Americans, as well as other ethnic and racial minorities. While FDR remained reserved about his opinions on civil rights, his administration set the tone for minority groups to primarily identify with the Democratic Party. Accordingly, only 8% of all Blacks, 28% of all Hispanics, and 12% of Asians in the U.S. identify as Republicans, compared to 84% of all Blacks, 63% of all Hispanics, and 65% of all Asians identifying as Democrats today.

Coupling the status quo with the low support for “patriotism” among young Democrat respondents aligns with the anti-minority connotation that the term itself is often wrapped up in. As the scholars Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto explain , “American patriotism has always been racialized.” Sidanius and Pratto continue that “nationality and ethnicity are complementary because their power has enabled whites to successfully define the prototypical American in their own image.” Further corroborating this notion that “American” equals “white” and thereby “white” equals “patriotic” is the work of researchers Thierry Devos of San Diego State University and Mahzarin R. Banaji of Harvard University, who found these connections to be implicit and rooted within our unconscious mind. Therefore, while “patriotism” intuitively means “loyalty to one’s country,” it is white Americans who have been propagated as being inherently “patriotic.” 

President Trump’s own rhetoric harkens back to this definition of patriotism. The phrase “America First,” which he mentioned in his inaugural address, builds on a history of xenophobia, immigration issues, and ultimately, racism. In 2019, President Trump also criticized four minority congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States, by telling them to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” instead of advocating for reform in America’s political system. Even in 2020, Trump continues   to make race a key part of his strategy, which some have labeled an exclusive “white identity politics” that alienates people of color. Despite this exclusivity, in his inaugural speech, Trump did note that “whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots,” implying a definition of patriotism that transcends race differences, although young people of color might not have cause to feel this way. 

This paradoxical construct of “patriotism” — both universal and exclusive — has largely been informed by clashing perspectives of different racial and ethnic groups, shaped by their complex and often competing histories. If one dissents against institutionalized, discriminatory, prejudiced practices, as did San Francisco’s 49ers former quarterback Colin Kaepernick by kneeling during the national anthem, it is perceived as “unpatriotic” by non-minorities who are convinced that such behavior stands in opposition to America’s democratic values. To minorities, the act is not symbolic of disdain for democracy, rather a commitment to improving democracy. Essentially, minority groups believe in the democratic cornerstone of equal protections for all,  and they are willing to exercise their freedom of expression to communicate when these ideals of democracy are jeopardized. Non-minorities perceive minority dissent as a defiance against democracy and thereby “unpatriotic” because they lack the same oppressed history as minorities do to attach minority-dissent to a broader social and historical context. 

Data from HPOP, alongside other national data and research, gives credence to the overall schism in the definition of “patriotism” among young Republicans and Democrats, which is primarily a result of the Democrat’s more diverse constituency compared to Republicans. Despite young Democrats identifying themselves as “patriotic” less frequently than young Republicans, this statistic is not per se a depiction of young Democrats’ lack of  “loyalty” and unwillingness to prioritize the best interests of the United States. Consequently, HPOP provides a glimpse of contested versions of “patriotism,” revealing divided attitudes towards what it means to be “American.”

Image Credit: Flickr/David M. Curtis

Sarah Song, a Visiting Scholar at the Academy in 2005–2006, is an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism (2007). She is at work on a book about immigration and citizenship in the United States.

It is often said that being an American means sharing a commitment to a set of values and ideals. 1 Writing about the relationship of ethnicity and American identity, the historian Philip Gleason put it this way:

To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an American. 2

To take the motto of the Great Seal of the United States, E pluribus unum – "From many, one" – in this context suggests not that manyness should be melted down into one, as in Israel Zangwill's image of the melting pot, but that, as the Great Seal's sheaf of arrows suggests, there should be a coexistence of many-in-one under a unified citizenship based on shared ideals.

Of course, the story is not so simple, as Gleason himself went on to note. America's history of racial and ethnic exclusions has undercut the universalist stance; for being an American has also meant sharing a national culture, one largely defined in racial, ethnic, and religious terms. And while solidarity can be understood as "an experience of willed affiliation," some forms of American solidarity have been less inclusive than others, demanding much more than simply the desire to affiliate. 3 In this essay, I explore different ideals of civic solidarity with an eye toward what they imply for newcomers who wish to become American citizens.

Why does civic solidarity matter? First, it is integral to the pursuit of distributive justice. The institutions of the welfare state serve as redistributive mechanisms that can offset the inequalities of life chances that a capitalist economy creates, and they raise the position of the worst-off members of society to a level where they are able to participate as equal citizens. While self-interest alone may motivate people to support social insurance schemes that protect them against unpredictable circumstances, solidarity is understood to be required to support redistribution from the rich to aid the poor, including housing subsidies, income supplements, and long-term unemployment benefits. 4 The underlying idea is that people are more likely to support redistributive schemes when they trust one another, and they are more likely to trust one another when they regard others as like themselves in some meaningful sense.

Second, genuine democracy demands solidarity. If democratic activity involves not just voting, but also deliberation, then people must make an effort to listen to and understand one another. Moreover, they must be willing to moderate their claims in the hope of finding common ground on which to base political decisions. Such democratic activity cannot be realized by individuals pursuing their own interests; it requires some concern for the common good. A sense of solidarity can help foster mutual sympathy and respect, which in turn support citizens' orientation toward the common good.

Third, civic solidarity offers more inclusive alternatives to chauvinist models that often prevail in political life around the world. For example, the alternative to the Nehru-Gandhi secular definition of Indian national identity is the Hindu chauvinism of the Bharatiya Janata Party, not a cosmopolitan model of belonging. "And what in the end can defeat this chauvinism," asks Charles Taylor, "but some reinvention of India as a secular republic with which people can identify?" 5 It is not enough to articulate accounts of solidarity and belonging only at the subnational or transnational levels while ignoring senses of belonging to the political community. One might believe that people have a deep need for belonging in communities, perhaps grounded in even deeper human needs for recognition and freedom, but even those skeptical of such claims might recognize the importance of articulating more inclusive models of political community as an alternative to the racial, ethnic, or religious narratives that have permeated political life. 6  The challenge, then, is to develop a model of civic solidarity that is "thick" enough to motivate support for justice and democracy while also "thin" enough to accommodate racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.

We might look first to Habermas's idea of constitutional patriotism (Verfassungspatriotismus). The idea emerged from a particular national history, to denote attachment to the liberal democratic institutions of the postwar Federal Republic of Germany, but Habermas and others have taken it to be a generalizable vision for liberal democratic societies, as well as for supranational communities such as the European Union. On this view, what binds citizens together is their common allegiance to the ideals embodied in a shared political culture. The only "common denominator for a constitutional patriotism" is that "every citizen be socialized into a common political culture." 7

Habermas points to the United States as a leading example of a multicultural society where constitutional principles have taken root in a political culture without depending on "all citizens' sharing the same language or the same ethnic and cultural origins." 8  The basis of American solidarity is not any particular racial or ethnic identity or religious beliefs, but universal moral ideals embodied in American political culture and set forth in such seminal texts as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Based on a minimal commonality of shared ideals, constitutional patriotism is attractive for the agnosticism toward particular moral and religious outlooks and ethnocultural identities to which it aspires.

What does constitutional patriotism suggest for the sort of reception immigrants should receive? There has been a general shift in Western Europe and North America in the standards governing access to citizenship from cultural markers to values, and this is a development that constitutional patriots would applaud. In the United States those seeking to become citizens must demonstrate basic knowledge of U.S. government and history. A newly revised U.S. citizenship test was instituted in October 2008 with the hope that it will serve, in the words of the chief of the Office of Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, as "an instrument to promote civic learning and patriotism." 9 The revised test attempts to move away from civics trivia to emphasize political ideas and concepts. (There is still a fair amount of trivia: "How many amendments does the Constitution have?" "What is the capital of your state?") The new test asks more open-ended questions about government powers and political concepts: "What does the judicial branch do?" "What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?" "What is freedom of religion?" "What is the 'rule of law'?" 10

Constitutional patriots would endorse this focus on values and principles. In Habermas's view, legal principles are anchored in the "political culture," which he suggests is separable from "ethical-cultural" forms of life. Acknowledging that in many countries the "ethical-cultural" form of life of the majority is "fused" with the "political culture," he argues that the "level of the shared political culture must be uncoupled from the level of subcultures and their prepolitical identities." 11  All that should be expected of immigrants is that they embrace the constitutional principles as interpreted by the political culture, not that they necessarily embrace the majority's ethical-cultural forms.

Yet language is a key aspect of "ethical-cultural" forms of life, shaping people's worldviews and experiences. It is through language that individuals become who they are. Since a political community must conduct its affairs in at least one language, the ethical-cultural and political cannot be completely "uncoupled." As theorists of multiculturalism have stressed, complete separation of state and particularistic identities is impossible; government decisions about the language of public institutions, public holidays, and state symbols unavoidably involve recognizing and supporting particular ethnic and religious groups over others. 12 In the United States, English language ability has been a statutory qualification for naturalization since 1906, originally as a requirement of oral ability and later as a requirement of English literacy. Indeed, support for the principles of the Constitution has been interpreted as requiring English literacy. 13 The language requirement might be justified as a practical matter (we need some language to be the common language of schools, government, and the workplace, so why not the language of the majority?), but for a great many citizens, the language requirement is also viewed as a key marker of national identity. The continuing centrality of language in naturalization policy prevents us from saying that what it means to be an American is purely a matter of shared values.

Another misconception about constitutional patriotism is that it is necessarily more inclusive of newcomers than cultural nationalist models of solidarity. Its inclusiveness depends on which principles are held up as the polity's shared principles, and its normative substance depends on and must be evaluated in light of a background theory of justice, freedom, or democracy; it does not by itself provide such a theory. Consider ideological requirements for naturalization in U.S. history. The first naturalization law of 1790 required nothing more than an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. The second naturalization act added two ideological elements: the renunciation of titles or orders of nobility and the requirement that one be found to have "behaved as a man . . . attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States." 14  This attachment requirement was revised in 1940 from a behavioral qualification to a personal attribute, but this did not help clarify what attachment to constitutional principles requires. 15 Not surprisingly, the "attachment to constitutional principles" requirement has been interpreted as requiring a belief in representative government, federalism, separation of powers, and constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. It has also been interpreted as disqualifying anarchists, polygamists, and conscientious objectors for citizenship. In 1950, support for communism was added to the list of grounds for disqualification from naturalization – as well as grounds for exclusion and deportation. 16 The 1990 Immigration Act retained the McCarthy-era ideological qualifications for naturalization; current law disqualifies those who advocate or affiliate with an organization that advocates communism or opposition to all organized government. 17 Patriotism, like nationalism, is capable of excess and pathology, as evidenced by loyalty oaths and campaigns against "un-American" activities.

In contrast to constitutional patriots, liberal nationalists acknowledge that states cannot be culturally neutral even if they tried. States cannot avoid coercing citizens into preserving a national culture of some kind because state institutions and laws define a political culture, which in turn shapes the range of customs and practices of daily life that constitute a national culture. David Miller, a leading theorist of liberal nationalism, defines national identity according to the following elements: a shared belief among a group of individuals that they belong together, historical continuity stretching across generations, connection to a particular territory, and a shared set of characteristics constituting a national culture. 18  It is not enough to share a common identity rooted in a shared history or a shared territory; a shared national culture is a necessary feature of national identity. I share a national culture with someone, even if we never meet, if each of us has been initiated into the traditions and customs of a national culture.

What sort of content makes up a national culture? Miller says more about what a national culture does not entail. It need not be based on biological descent. Even if nationalist doctrines have historically been based on notions of biological descent and race, Miller emphasizes that sharing a national culture is, in principle, compatible with people belonging to a diversity of racial and ethnic groups. In addition, every member need not have been born in the homeland. Thus, "immigration need not pose problems, provided only that the immigrants come to share a common national identity, to which they may contribute their own distinctive ingredients." 19

Liberal nationalists focus on the idea of culture, as opposed to ethnicity or descent, in order to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. Thicker than constitutional patriotism, liberal nationalism, Miller maintains, is thinner than ethnic models of belonging. Both nationality and ethnicity have cultural components, but what is said to distinguish "civic" nations from "ethnic" nations is that the latter are exclusionary and closed on grounds of biological descent; the former are, in principle, open to anyone willing to adopt the national culture. 20

Yet the civic-ethnic distinction is not so clear-cut in practice. Every nation has an "ethnic core." As Anthony Smith observes

[M]odern "civic" nations have not in practice really transcended ethnicity or ethnic sentiments. This is a Western mirage, reality-as-wish; closer examination always reveals the ethnic core of civic nations, in practice, even in immigrant societies with their early pioneering and dominant (English and Spanish) culture in America, Australia, or Argentina, a culture that provided the myths and language of the would-be nation. 21

This blurring of the civic-ethnic distinction is reflected throughout U.S. history with the national culture often defined in ethnic, racial, and religious terms. 22

Why, then, if all national cultures have ethnic cores, should those outside this core embrace the national culture? Miller acknowledges that national cultures have typically been formed around the ethnic group that is dominant in a particular territory and therefore bear "the hallmarks of that group: language, religion, cultural identity." Muslim identity in contemporary Britain becomes politicized when British national identity is conceived as containing "an Anglo-Saxon bias which discriminates against Muslims (and other ethnic minorities)." But he maintains that his idea of nationality can be made "democratic in so far as it insists that everyone should take part in this debate [about what constitutes the national identity] on an equal footing, and sees the formal arenas of politics as the main (though not the only) place where the debate occurs." 23

The major difficulty here is that national cultures are not typically the product of collective deliberation in which all have the opportunity to participate. The challenge is to ensure that historically marginalized groups, as well as new groups of immigrants, have genuine opportunities to contribute "on an equal footing" to shaping the national culture. Without such opportunities, liberal nationalism collapses into conservative nationalism of the kind defended by Samuel Huntington. He calls for immigrants to assimilate into America's "Anglo- Protestant culture." Like Miller, Huntington views ideology as "a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking in racial, ethnic, or cultural sources of community," and he rejects race and ethnicity as constituent elements of national identity. 24 Instead, he calls on Americans of all races and ethnicities to "reinvigorate their core culture." Yet his "cultural" vision of America is pervaded by ethnic and religious elements: it is not only of a country "committed to the principles of the Creed," but also of "a deeply religious and primarily Christian country, encompassing several religious minorities, adhering to Anglo- Protestant values, speaking English, maintaining its European cultural heritage." 25 That the cultural core of the United States is the culture of its historically dominant groups is a point that Huntington unabashedly accepts.

Cultural nationalist visions of solidarity would lend support to immigration and immigrant policies that give weight to linguistic and ethnic preferences and impose special requirements on individuals from groups deemed to be outside the nation's "core culture." One example is the practice in postwar Germany of giving priority in immigration and naturalization policy to ethnic Germans; they were the only foreign nationals who were accepted as permanent residents set on the path toward citizenship. They were treated not as immigrants but "resettlers" (Aussiedler) who acted on their constitutional right to return to their country of origin. In contrast, non-ethnically German guestworkers (Gastarbeiter) were designated as "aliens" (Auslander) under the 1965 German Alien Law and excluded from German citizenship. 26 Another example is the Japanese naturalization policy that, until the late 1980s, required naturalized citizens to adopt a Japanese family name. The language requirement in contemporary naturalization policies in the West is the leading remaining example of a cultural nationalist integration policy; it reflects not only a concern with the economic and political integration of immigrants but also a nationalist concern with preserving a distinctive national culture.

Constitutional patriotism and liberal nationalism are accounts of civic solidarity that deal with what one might call first-level diversity. Individuals have different group identities and hold divergent moral and religious outlooks, yet they are expected to share the same idea of what it means to be American: either patriots committed to the same set of ideals or co-nationals sharing the relevant cultural attributes. Charles Taylor suggests an alternative approach, the idea of "deep diversity." Rather than trying to fix some minimal content as the basis of solidarity, Taylor acknowledges not only the fact of a diversity of group identities and outlooks (first-level diversity), but also the fact of a diversity of ways of belonging to the political community (second-level or deep diversity). Taylor introduces the idea of deep diversity in the context of discussing what it means to be Canadian:

Someone of, say, Italian extraction in Toronto or Ukrainian extraction in Edmonton might indeed feel Canadian as a bearer of individual rights in a multicultural mosaic. . . . But this person might nevertheless accept that a Québécois or a Cree or a Déné might belong in a very different way, that these persons were Canadian through being members of their national communities. Reciprocally, the Québécois, Cree, or Déné would accept the perfect legitimacy of the "mosaic" identity.

Civic solidarity or political identity is not "defined according to a concrete content," but, rather, "by the fact that everybody is attached to that identity in his or her own fashion, that everybody wants to continue that history and proposes to make that community progress." 27 What leads people to support second-level diversity is both the desire to be a member of the political community and the recognition of disagreement about what it means to be a member. In our world, membership in a political community provides goods we cannot do without; this, above all, may be the source of our desire for political community.

Even though Taylor contrasts Canada with the United States, accepting the myth of America as a nation of immigrants, the United States also has a need for acknowledgment of diverse modes of belonging based on the distinctive histories of different groups. Native Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and Mexican Americans: across these communities of people, we can find not only distinctive group identities, but also distinctive ways of belonging to the political community.

Deep diversity is not a recapitulation of the idea of cultural pluralism first developed in the United States by Horace Kallen, who argued for assimilation "in matters economic and political" and preservation of differences "in cultural consciousness." 28  In Kallen's view, hyphenated Americans lived their spiritual lives in private, on the left side of the hyphen, while being culturally anonymous on the right side of the hyphen. The ethnic-political distinction maps onto a private-public dichotomy; the two spheres are to be kept separate, such that Irish Americans, for example, are culturally Irish and politically American. In contrast, the idea of deep diversity recognizes that Irish Americans are culturally Irish American and politically Irish American. As Michael Walzer put it in his discussion of American identity almost twenty years ago, the culture of hyphenated Americans has been shaped by American culture, and their politics is significantly ethnic in style and substance. 29  The idea of deep or second-level diversity is not just about immigrant ethnics, which is the focus of both Kallen's and Walzer's analyses, but also racial minorities, who, based on their distinctive experiences of exclusion and struggles toward inclusion, have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

While attractive for its inclusiveness, the deep diversity model may be too thin a basis for civic solidarity in a democratic society. Can there be civic solidarity without citizens already sharing a set of values or a culture in the first place? In writing elsewhere about how different groups within democracy might "share identity space," Taylor himself suggests that the "basic principles of republican constitutions – democracy itself and human rights, among them" constitute a "non-negotiable" minimum. Yet, what distinguishes Taylor's deep diversity model of solidarity from Habermas's constitutional patriotism is the recognition that "historic identities cannot be just abstracted from." The minimal commonality of shared principles is "accompanied by a recognition that these principles can be realized in a number of different ways, and can never be applied neutrally without some confronting of the substantive religious ethnic-cultural differences in societies." 30 And in contrast to liberal nationalism, deep diversity does not aim at specifying a common national culture that must be shared by all. What matters is not so much the content of solidarity, but the ethos generated by making the effort at mutual understanding and respect.

Canada's approach to the integration of immigrants may be the closest thing there is to "deep diversity." Canadian naturalization policy is not so different from that of the United States: a short required residency period, relatively low application fees, a test of history and civics knowledge, and a language exam. 31 Where the United States and Canada diverge is in their public commitment to diversity. Through its official multiculturalism policies, Canada expresses a commitment to the value of diversity among immigrant communities through funding for ethnic associations and supporting heritage language schools. 32 Constitutional patriots and liberal nationalists say that immigrant integration should be a two-way process, that immigrants should shape the host society's dominant culture just as they are shaped by it. Multicultural accommodations actually provide the conditions under which immigrant integration might genuinely become a two-way process. Such policies send a strong message that immigrants are a welcome part of the political community and should play an active role in shaping its future evolution.

The question of solidarity may not be the most urgent task Americans face today; war and economic crisis loom larger. But the question of solidarity remains important in the face of ongoing large-scale immigration and its effects on intergroup relations, which in turn affect our ability to deal with issues of economic inequality and democracy. I hope to have shown that patriotism is not easily separated from nationalism, that nationalism needs to be evaluated in light of shared principles, and that respect for deep diversity presupposes a commitment to some shared values, including perhaps diversity itself. Rather than viewing the three models of civic solidarity I have discussed as mutually exclusive – as the proponents of each sometimes seem to suggest – we should think about how they might be made to work together with each model tempering the excesses of the others.

What is now formally required of immigrants seeking to become American citizens most clearly reflects the first two models of solidarity: professed allegiance to the principles of the Constitution (constitutional patriotism) and adoption of a shared culture by demonstrating the ability to read, write, and speak English (liberal nationalism). The revised citizenship test makes gestures toward respect for first-level diversity and inclusion of historically marginalized groups with questions such as, "Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?" "What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?" "What did Susan B. Anthony do?" "What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" The election of the first African American president of the United States is a significant step forward. A more inclusive American solidarity requires the recognition not only of the fact that Americans are a diverse people, but also that they have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

• 1 For comments on earlier versions of this essay, I am grateful to participants in the Kadish Center Workshop on Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at Berkeley Law School; the Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism; and the UCLA Legal Theory Workshop. I am especially grateful to Christopher Kutz, Sarah Paoletti, Eric Rakowski, Samuel Scheffler, Seana Shiffrin, and Rogers Smith.
• 2 Philip Gleason, "American Identity and Americanization," in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups , ed. Stephan Thernstrom (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1980), 31–32, 56–57.
• 3 David Hollinger, "From Identity to Solidarity," Dædalus 135 (4) (Fall 2006): 24.
• 4 David Miller, "Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections," in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies , ed. Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 328, 334.
• 5 Charles Taylor, "Why Democracy Needs Patriotism," in For Love of Country? ed. Joshua Cohen (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 121.
• 6 On the purpose and varieties of narratives of collective identity and membership that have been and should be articulated not only for subnational and transnational, but also for national communities, see Rogers M. Smith, Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
• 7 Jürgen Habermas, "Citizenship and National Identity," in Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass.: mit Press, 1996), 500.
• 9 Edward Rothstein, "Connections: Refining the Tests That Confer Citizenship," The New York Times , January 23, 2006.
• 10 See http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/100q.pdf (accessed November 28, 2008).
• 11 Habermas, "The European Nation-State," in Between Facts and Norms , trans. Rehg, 118.
• 12 Charles Taylor, "The Politics of Recognition," in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
• 13 8 U.S.C., section 1423 (1988); In re Katz , 21 F.2d 867 (E.D. Mich. 1927) (attachment to principles of Constitution implies English literacy requirement).
• 14 Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat., 103 and Act of Jan. 29, 1795, ch. 20, section 1, 1 Stat., 414. See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship , 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 239–243. James Madison opposed the second requirement: "It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion, because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support his Government as he finds it"; Annals of Cong. 1, 1022–1023.
• 15 8 U.S.C., section 1427(a)(3). See also Schneiderman v. United States , 320 U.S. 118, 133 n.12 (1943), which notes the change from behaving as a person attached to constitutional principles to being a person attached to constitutional principles.
• 16 Internal Security Act of 1950, ch. 1024, sections 22, 25, 64 Stat. 987, 1006–1010, 1013–1015. The Internal Security Act provisions were included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, sections 212(a)(28), 241(a)(6), 313, 66 Stat. 163, 184–186, 205–206, 240–241.
• 17 Gerald L. Neuman, "Justifying U.S. Naturalization Policies," Virginia Journal of International Law 35 (1994): 255.
• 18 David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 25.
• 19 Ibid., 25–26.
• 20 On the civic-ethnic distinction, see W. Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992); David Hollinger, Post-Ethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1995); Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
• 21 Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 216.
• 22 See Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
• 23 Miller, On Nationality , 122–123, 153–154.
• 24 Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12. In his earlier book, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1981), Huntington defended a "civic" view of American identity based on the "political ideas of the American creed," which include liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, and private property (46). His change in view seems to have been motivated in part by his belief that principles and ideology are too weak to unite a political community, and also by his fears about immigrants maintaining transnational identities and loyalties – in particular, Mexican immigrants whom he sees as creating bilingual, bicultural, and potentially separatist regions; Who Are We? 205.
• 25 Huntington, Who Are We? 31, 20.
• 26 Christian Joppke, "The Evolution of Alien Rights in the United States, Germany, and the European Union," Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices , ed. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001), 44. In 2000, the German government moved from a strictly jus sanguinis rule toward one that combines jus sanguinis and jus soli , which opens up access to citizenship to non-ethnically German migrants, including Turkish migrant workers and their descendants. A minimum length of residency of eight (down from ten) years is also required, and dual citizenship is not formally recognized. While more inclusive than before, German citizenship laws remain the least inclusive among Western European and North American countries, with inclusiveness measured by the following criteria: whether citizenship is granted by jus soli (whether children of non-citizens who are born in a country's territory can acquire citizenship), the length of residency required for naturalization, and whether naturalized immigrants are permitted to hold dual citizenship. See Marc Morjé Howard, "Comparative Citizenship: An Agenda for Cross-National Research," Perspectives on Politics 4 (2006): 443–455.
• 27 Charles Taylor, "Shared and Divergent Values," in Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism , ed. Guy Laforest (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 183, 130.
• 28 Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1924), 114–115.
• 29 Michael Walzer, "What Does It Mean to Be an 'American'?" (1974); reprinted in What It Means to Be an American: Essays on the American Experience (New York: Marsilio, 1990), 46.
• 30 Charles Taylor, "Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?)," in Multiculturalism, Liberalism, and Democracy , ed. Rajeev Bhargava et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 163.
• 31 The differences in naturalization policy are a slightly longer residency requirement in the United States (five years in contrast to Canada's three) and Canada's official acceptance of dual citizenship.
• 32 See Irene Bloemraad, Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

What Does it Mean to be an American? Reexamining the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship

"As a victim of lies and deceit in the past," writes Bica, "reason tells me that I must be vigilant, informed, perhaps even skeptical, and certainly not blindly follow and accept as fact and as just, as I once did, everything I am told and/or required to do."

What I Learned About Being an American—and What Comes Next

I will work tirelessly, though nonviolently, through protest and dissent, as i have for over 50 years, to effect positive change and ensure that reason and right prevail..

I am not a political expert. Nor do I know all the intricacies of the electoral process. Further, I do not declare allegiance to any political party or candidate. Rather, I support democracy and the Constitution that I swore to defend when I pledged the Oath of Office as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps.

I do now understand enough, however, to realize that political stability, perhaps even national survival, requires some level of reasonable trust in our system of government and in its leadership. If I cannot muster even that then I am a fraud and have no right to call myself an American.

That being said, I must ensure that I avoid being overly naïve. After all I did once believe, wrongly I am now convinced, that as an American, I was obligated to fight communism in Vietnam so as not to have to fight it in San Francisco. As a victim of lies and deceit in the past, reason tells me that I must be vigilant, informed, perhaps even skeptical, and certainly not blindly follow and accept as fact and as just, as I once did, everything I am told and/or required to do. With age I have learned that as a citizen, even as a member of the military, probably especially as a member of the military, given its sanction to kill and to destroy, I remain a moral agent responsible for the morality and legality of my actions and decisions.

As I grew older, I have realized that I am bound by a social contract to actively participate in the democratic process, the least of which is to vote. To responsibly fulfill this obligation of citizenship, I must evaluate what our national leaders and those who aspire to leadership have done, said, and intend to do should they win election and gain power. I must also seek, as best as I am able, to understand their motivation and evaluate their character.

Further, I must familiarize myself with—and ensure compliance to—the dictates of the Constitution. I must strive to be courageous, aware, and not misled by disinformation, or intimidated by political bullies, or succumb to the threats of those who support candidates whose goals are personal wealth and power rather than the just interests of this nation and its people. To ensure quality candidates and the best possible leaders, I will not vote for the lesser evil, but only for the greater good. Whether or not my preferred candidate emerges victorious, I will abide by the results of a fair and just election unless rationally and conclusively proven otherwise. That is after all what democracy demands, the great American Experiment.

Should I disagree with the decisions and policies of those in power, which is likely given this nation’s propensity for militarism and war, I will not incite, participate in, or support insurrection or rebellion. Instead, I will work tirelessly, though nonviolently, through protest and dissent, as I have for over 50 years, to effect positive change and ensure that reason and right prevail. And finally, I will strive to make America into what it has always claimed to be, exceptional , a “city on the hill”—a model of justice, fairness, equality, and peaceful co-existence for all the people of the world no matter their race, religion, economic status, sexual preference, or nationality.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

• Who Gets to Be an American? On the Evolution of US Citizenship ›
• The US Has Only Been 'Indispensible' in Creating Instability ›
• The U.S.-Mexico Border Isn't Protected by Militias, It's Patrolled by Domestic Terrorists ›
• Trump Wants to Reframe the Census to Fit His Definition of America, Not Protect Americans ›

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox..

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Eric Bettinger
• Thomas Sowell
• Michael McConnell
• Josiah Ober
• Stephen Haber
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology Policy Accelerator
• US, China, and the World

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

To Be An American In The 21st Century

The question of what it means to be American has been debated since the founding of our republic, and we are at another moment when the question has taken on a new urgency.

In The Federalist Papers No. 2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence for the Independent Journal , John Jay wrote to the people of New York arguing for the ratification of the US Constitution around the issue of cultural unity. He reasoned for unity because Americans were “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.”

In 1787, Jay was nuanced in that he argued an important part of American identity was also a belief in the American creed such as equality, liberty, individualism, and independence, which are enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution he was working to ratify.

Others have interpreted Jay’s emphasis on culture more narrowly, arguing for a more tribal American identity. The late Samuel Huntington , a Harvard professor of political science, writes in his book Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, “the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico.” Huntington argues that unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into US culture, thereby rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built America. Huntington then warns this persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages, and we ignore it at our own peril.

Huntington’s nationalism, and parochial extension of John Jay’s line of reasoning, is in direct conflict with the American identity Abraham Lincoln espoused against the anti-immigrant sentiment of his day. In a speech the future president gave in Chicago on July 10, 1858, as part of the Lincoln-Douglas debates , Lincoln discussed how on every 4 th of July Americans celebrate our Founding Fathers. However, he argues brilliantly that those who have immigrated to the United States from Germany, Ireland, France, and Scandinavia are every bit as American as those who trace their ancestry back to the founding of our republic because the principles of the Declaration of Independence serve as an electric chord running through all our hearts.

In embracing an ideal and principle that was meant to be taken literally, namely that all men are created equal, Lincoln also rejects Douglas’s beliefs that the ideals of the Declaration were reserved solely for descendants of the American Revolution and not later arrivals.

Remnants of these disagreements continue today. In his presidential farewell address , Ronald Reagan discussed the renewal that immigration brings to our identity and nation. “Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity,” said Reagan, “we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

Reagan views align with those of Abraham Lincoln that beliefs in our founding principles and the common American culture being continually enriched is what makes our identity.

In sharp contrast, President Trump today attacks Hispanics and Muslims as being different than other Americans and a threat to our nation. This nativist sense of national identity calls to mind the nationalism of Samuel Huntington and the most parochial reading of Federalist 2. The irony that Trump holds up the Norwegian immigrant as an ideal while Lincoln had to argue Scandinavians should be part of the American family in his 1858 speech is lost on him.

Like then-Senate candidate Lincoln and President Reagan, I believe Americans share in our nation’s principles and political culture set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

I also believe there has been and remains a cultural expectation and responsibility that immigrants will not only bring diverse perspectives but also join their new country as citizens. Jürgen Habermas , a German sociologist and philosopher, wrote of an Iranian immigrant to Germany who chooses to stand with other Germans at a concentration camp to participate in the acknowledgment of the nation’s collective guilt, even though his ancestors were not part of those crimes.

We honor our achievements as a sense of American culture, such as winning World Wars I and II, putting a man on the moon, prevailing in the Cold War, securing civil rights, and ushering in the digital age. We acknowledge the sacrifices of the generations of men and women who spilled blood, whether in places like Normandy or Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge , so we can have opportunity. We also, regardless of background, have common national traditions such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Veteran’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Halloween; and sports such as baseball, basketball, and American football that bind us. We engage in philanthropy, like following the rules, are generally neighborly and friendly, and keep public places clean. Yet, a hallmark of being an American is also carrying on the cultural traditions of our ancestors whether by bringing soccer, our native cuisines, our ethnic dances, or holidays like Diwali and Eid al-Adha to this country.

In the twenty-first century, Americans are more ethnically and racially diverse than we have ever been. Much of this change has been driven by immigration. In 1960, Europeans accounted for seven of eight immigrants in the United States. By 2010, nine out of ten were from outside Europe. In 1965, 84 percent of the country was non-Hispanic white, compared with 62 percent today. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States in the past fifty years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. This immigration has brought young workers who help offset the large-scale retirement of the baby boomers. Today, a near-record 14 percent of the country’s population is foreign born compared with just 5 percent in 1965. This diversity strengthens our country and makes it a better place to live.

At a time when growth in the US economy and those of other developed nations is slowing, immigration is vitally important to our economy. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a new business. In fact, 43 percent of companies in the 2017 Fortune 500, including several technology firms in Silicon Valley, were launched by foreign-born entrepreneurs , many arriving on family visas. Immigrants also take out patents at two-to-three times the rate of native-born citizens, benefiting our entire country. Family and skilled-based visas complement each other: America would become less attractive to those who come on skills-based visas without the chance for their families to join them.

However, it is important to ensure that these economic benefits help Americans. For too long, some corporations have abused H-1B, L-1, and H-2B visas as a cheap way to displace American workers. To close these loopholes and overhaul the visa programs to protect workers and crack down on foreign outsourcing companies that deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs, I have cointroduced bipartisan legislation to restore the H-1B visa program back to its original intent, protect American workers, and make sure we are also providing opportunities for STEM and developing talent here at home.

When done right—as John Feinblatt, chairman of the New American Economy, stated—“The data shows it, and nearly 1,500 economists know it: immigration means more talent, more jobs, and broad economic benefits for American workers and companies alike.”

For many immigrants to this nation, a challenge in the American identity is finding a balance and respect for some of our existing American traditions, while also being proud of one’s own heritage.

I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It is fairly suburban, rural, and was 98 percent Caucasian in the 1980s. When my family moved onto Amsterdam Avenue, there was a little bit of chatter and concern on our street that the Khannas were moving in. My parents finally figured out what the fuss was about: On Christmas Eve, everyone on our street would put candle lights on the street. We are of Hindu faith, and there was concern that we wouldn’t. My Dad said that we would be happy to put the candle lights on the street, and we put out lights every year. We were always invited to and attended all the Christmas Eve parties. I also loved playing touch football in my neighbors’ backyards, participating in the same Little League games, avoiding cars while hitting hockey pucks on the road, and going to neighbors’ homes during school candy sales to raise money for charity.

But I never associated my childhood in anyway with giving up my core identity. Let me explain. Years later as a twenty-three-year-old, when I was interning for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (daughter of Robert Kennedy), her aide told me to go work on the Hill because I had an aptitude for policy. You cannot ever get elected, her aide said to me in a matter-of-fact tone, given your faith and heritage. I refrained from writing to him when I won, pointing out that while his boss lost her race for Congress, I ended up winning mine by 20 points . 

But I do remember talking to my parents back then about identity. They told me I will make it in this country if I just keep working hard and was ethical. It is a good and decent country, they assured me. But my Mom made me promise, given my grandfather’s struggle in jail during Gandhi’s independence movement, that I will never give up who I am. I never did.

Today, the grandson of a freedom fighter who remembers seeing his parents have their green cards stamped, represents the most economically powerful Congressional District in the world.

That is the story of America. That represents the hope of American immigrant families.

In many ways my story—born in Philadelphia on the bicentennial year of America’s founding in 1976 and growing up to represent Silicon Valley—is a testament to how open our nation still is to the dreams and aspirations of freedom-loving people who trace their lineage to every corner of the world.

We are still steps away from Lincoln’s hope of becoming a nation that lives up to our founding principles and ushers in a just and lasting peace. But here is what I know: we can be open to the voices of new immigrants without losing our core values or American culture—if anything, the new immigrants will only enrich our exceptional nation.   

Rep. Ro Khanna represents Silicon Valley and California’s 17 th Congressional District. Chris Schloesser, his legislative director, assisted with research for this piece.

Speaking of California and immigration, here’s how the Golden State’s population breaks down (the following numbers all courtesy of a May 2018 report by the Public Policy Institute of California). The nation state of 39.5 million residents is home to more than 10 million immigrants. In 2016, approximately 27% of California’s population was foreign-born (about twice the national percentage), with immigrants born in Latin America (51%) and Asia (39%) leading the way. Nearly eight in ten California immigrants are working-age adults (age 18 to 64)—that’s more than one-third of the entire states’ working-age population. A major concern for California’s future: the immigrant education gap. As recently as 2016, one-third (34%) of California’s immigrants hadn’t completed high school—more than four times that of US-born California residents (just 8%). Twenty-eight percent of California’s foreign-born residents hold at least a college bachelor’s degrees—again, less than California’s US-born residents (36%). Why that matters: the less education, the greater the challenge for immigrants to climb the economic ladder and make a go of it in California, home to high taxes, expensive housing, and a crushing cost of living .

[[{"fid":"257121","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"1"}}]]

[[{"fid":"257126","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"2":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"2"}}]]

Source: "Almost half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by American immigrants or their children" via Brookings

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

The Essence of being American: Identity and Values

This essay about what it means to be American explores the complex identity shaped by values such as freedom, equality, innovation, and community. It argues that being American transcends legal definitions, embodying a commitment to individual liberty, self-determination, and the pursuit of happiness. The essay highlights the nation’s ongoing struggle and commitment to equality, noting the importance of addressing historical injustices. It also discusses how innovation and resilience are central to the American spirit, reflecting a history of pushing boundaries and embracing change. Furthermore, it acknowledges the strength found in the nation’s diversity, emphasizing unity and the common good as fundamental to the American identity. In summary, to be American is to be part of a dynamic experiment in democracy, constantly striving towards a more inclusive and just future.

You can also find more related free essay samples at PapersOwl about Identity.

How it works

What does it mean to be American? This question, seemingly simple, opens a vast expanse of complexity and diversity that mirrors the nation itself. To be American transcends the mere fact of citizenship or the geographic confines of the United States. It embodies a tapestry of ideals, values, and a shared sense of identity that has evolved over centuries. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of American identity, exploring the principles and beliefs that constitute the essence of being American.

At the heart of American identity lies the cherished value of freedom. This principle is not only a historical relic of the nation’s founding but a living, breathing aspect of everyday life. Freedom in the American context encompasses the liberties enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and the pursuit of happiness. However, it goes beyond legal definitions to include the freedom to dream, to strive, and to be oneself unapologetically. This deeply ingrained belief in individual liberty and self-determination has attracted millions to its shores, seeking the promise of a better life where one’s destiny is not predetermined but crafted through effort and opportunity.

Equality stands as another pillar of what it means to be American. Though the nation’s history is fraught with struggles and contradictions regarding equality, the ideal remains a beacon that guides societal progress. Being American involves a commitment to the principle that all men and women are created equal, deserving of the same respect, opportunities, and justice. This commitment is reflected in the ongoing movements and efforts to address historical injustices and ensure that the American promise is inclusive of all, regardless of race, gender, or background.

Innovation and resilience are also key components of the American spirit. The United States has been a cradle of innovation, from the technological marvels that have reshaped the global landscape to the cultural contributions that have enriched humanity. The American ethos is one of pushing boundaries, challenging the status quo, and persisting in the face of adversity. This drive is rooted in the nation’s history of pioneers and immigrants who braved unknown frontiers in search of a new beginning. To be American is to embrace change and the possibility of a better future, fueled by the belief that through hard work and ingenuity, anything is possible.

Community and unity, despite the country’s vast diversity, play a crucial role in defining American identity. The United States is a mosaic of cultures, ethnicities, and beliefs, each contributing to the rich tapestry of the nation. To be American is to appreciate this diversity, recognizing that the strength of the country lies in its ability to unite people around shared values and ideals. It is about finding common ground and working together towards the common good, celebrating the differences that make each American unique while acknowledging the bonds that tie the nation together.

In conclusion, being American is a complex and dynamic state of being, shaped by the principles of freedom, equality, innovation, and community. It is an identity marked by a perpetual striving towards the ideals upon which the nation was founded, even as it confronts the contradictions and challenges inherent in living up to such principles. To be American is to be part of an ongoing experiment in democracy, diversity, and freedom, contributing to a story that is continually unfolding. It is an identity that, at its best, reflects a commitment to a better, more inclusive, and more just future for all who call America home.

Cite this page

The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values. (2024, Feb 27). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/

"The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values." PapersOwl.com , 27 Feb 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/ [Accessed: 7 Nov. 2024]

"The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values." PapersOwl.com, Feb 27, 2024. Accessed November 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/

"The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values," PapersOwl.com , 27-Feb-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/. [Accessed: 7-Nov-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Essence of Being American: Identity and Values . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-essence-of-being-american-identity-and-values/ [Accessed: 7-Nov-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Stanford University

What Does It Mean to Be an American?: Reflections from Students (Part 5)

The following is Part 5 of a multiple-part series. To read previous installments in this series, please visit the following articles: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 .

On December 8, 2020, January 19, 2021, March 16, 2021, and May 18, 2021, SPICE posted four articles that highlight reflections from 33 students on the question, “What does it mean to be an American?” Part 5 features eight additional reflections.

The free educational website “ What Does It Mean to Be an American? ” offers six lessons on immigration, civic engagement, leadership, civil liberties & equity, justice & reconciliation, and U.S.–Japan relations. The lessons encourage critical thinking through class activities and discussions. On March 24, 2021, SPICE’s Rylan Sekiguchi was honored by the Association for Asian Studies for his authorship of the lessons that are featured on the website, which was developed by the Mineta Legacy Project in partnership with SPICE.

Since the website launched in September 2020, SPICE has invited students to review and share their reflections on the lessons. Below are the reflections of eight students. The reflections below do not necessarily reflect those of the SPICE staff.

Giyonna Bowens, Texas Growing up as a military brat, with my father being a retired sergeant major (SGM) of 30 years, I realized that there is so much to explore in the world, and behind every face, there is a story. It has taught me to be an open-minded individual and to look past racial/socio-economic stereotypes and to truly get to know people for who they are. While being an African American female has inspired me to speak up against racial and social injustice, it has ingrained in me that anyone can do anything they set their minds to, so long as they have a strong work ethic and a positive attitude. What it means to be an American to me is to be educated on other cultures and ethnicities, to fight against gender inequality, and to accept people, no matter their sexuality/gender identity, to progress forward in America.

Austin Akira Fujimori, California My family loves to travel, so I have been able to experience and observe different types of people and cultures across the world. Because of my Chinese and Japanese heritage, I have frequently visited Japan and China, where it seems that traditional culture has had a very strong effect on people. Based in part on how their citizens dressed and acted, I could easily tell that there was a distinct difference between Chinese and Japanese people. In the U.S., there doesn’t seem to be a dominant culture that influences people. Because America is so diverse, many cultures are brought to the table, allowing people born in the U.S. to live without the influence of one dominant culture. For me, to be American is to be unique, to be born with the freedom to be whoever you want to be.

Eddie Shin Fujimori, California Being born in a family that comes from China and Japan, I have often considered other countries’ views of Americans. Confidence especially has always stood out as an essential part of what it means to be American. In my experience, this confidence is usually interpreted by people in other countries to be haughty and arrogant. However, I don’t see this “overconfidence” as negative. The trait is directly correlated to Americans strongly believing that working towards what they believe in—as evidenced in the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the murder of George Floyd and the anti-Asian hate protests following the rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans—can lead to considerable amounts of change. Being American means having the confidence to aspire towards a better society, knowing that we can have an enormous influence on the rules and laws passed.

Nāliʻipōʻaimoku Harman, Hawaii He Hawaiʻ i au. I identify as a Native Hawaiian, but I am of mixed race. The word American has little to no cultural relevance to me. The truth is, I do live in the United States but the American ways don’t match up with my life, how I think and what our traditions and values are. Every day, I wake up and speak Hawaiian, not English, with my family. When I watch the television and see people refusing to wear masks citing individual rights as justification, I feel angry. I am in the habit of wearing a mask in public and even when meeting with family because I know that others’ safety is more important than my personal discomfort. My choices affect others, and my successes are not mine alone.

Lanakila Jones, Hawaii Being American to me is about having freedom in doing what I love. It’s being able to express myself in the ways I want to. As a Hawaiian, I am truly aware of the history of our nation. Our Queen, Liliʻuokalani, fought her hardest for her people and her beloved nation until the end. As a Hawaiian living in America, I value her integrity and feel the need to pursue it. We need to implement change to stop the ongoing challenges of today. We can’t change the past, we can only build a better present. Being American to me not only means grasping the thought of change, but actually engaging in it to primarily stop ongoing hatred amongst the citizens of our country. To be American means to fulfill equity amongst us to be greater.

Violet Lahde, California For me being American means assurance; a positive declaration intended to give confidence; a promise. As many of us have learned through our years living in America, we bear many privileges that others don’t, whether inside or outside of our borders. While we may still be fighting for those who can’t, I can still say America has offered me many opportunities, along with a feeling of freedom. This America isn’t and may never be perfect, but holds promise for the future. It allows me to have confidence in anything I want to achieve or change. So regardless of the injustice and prejudice that has become so apparent, I can say I am grateful for the safety and optimism America allows me to have.

Kristine Pashin, California If I asked you to draw an American, who would you draw? At its core, America is a country nurtured by unique individuals who foster ethnic and cultural diversity. As the daughter of two Bulgarian immigrants, I’ve oscillated between being “too American” and “not American enough.” To avoid confusion, I got used to separating my Bulgarian American identity into two personas. When I wore my nosia (a traditional folk outfit), I considered myself Bulgarian; in Western clothes, I was American. However, I realized that my outfits were a guise—covering up insecurities about my identity. An “American” isn’t someone who can simply be identified by their appearance, as we cannot typify America with one identity. Thus, there is no way to draw an American, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Ernesto Saenz Peña, California To me, “being an American” means being open-minded to new ideas and change. My teachers would always stress the importance of these qualities. Embracing these qualities has allowed me to learn about the diverse cultures in America. I learned Spanish from a young age, and it has allowed me to not only communicate with my parents and family in Mexico, but also has allowed me to see different points of view from others outside of and within America. Seeing other points of view has helped us to bring about changes throughout our history. For example, we abolished slavery, created more rights for farmworkers, and we continue to push against systemic racism. Being American means that we can speak up against what we think is wrong without fear of being punished.

What Does It Mean to Be an American?: Reflections from Students (Part 4)

Spice’s rylan sekiguchi is the 2021 franklin r. buchanan prize recipient, what does it mean to be an american: a webinar for educators, february 20, 2021, 10am pst.

Immigration

What does it mean to be an american today smithsonian institution secretary david j. skorton leads a vibrant conversation about the role immigrants play in our nation's economy, politics, and culture., what does it mean to be an american today, read the full transcript from the latest second opinion roundtable.

Dr. David J. Skorton : Hello and welcome to Smithsonian’s Second Opinion, where we convene conversations of importance to the country. I’m David Skorton, Secretary of the Smithsonian.

One of the defining metaphors of the United States has been that our country is a “melting pot” of immigrants from around the globe. But this powerful ideal also coexists alongside an anti-immigration sentiment that has persisted throughout our nation’s history.

Many new populations have come to America over the centuries: Some came in pursuit of a more prosperous life; some came in search of protection from religious, ethnic, or political persecution. Others were brought across the Atlantic against their will. And some Americans’ ancestors were here long before the first Europeans arrived.

In spite of these differences in origin, we all grapple with the concept of what being a “nation of immigrants” entails, as each incoming community has contributed its respective heritage and culture to American society. And we celebrate that diversity today in our foods, our arts, our sciences, our entrepreneurship, our politics, and our faiths. But we also cherish the notion of a shared American identity that transcends our individual differences.

Sometime people see these two different perspectives as a source of friction -- but others see these as the core of America’s great strength.

In this edition of “Second Opinion” we will discuss the role that immigrants play in 21st century America. How do our country’s immigrants contribute to the nation as a whole today? What may be different in these times versus the past? What is gained and what is lost when immigrants come to America and when they shed their heritage and become “American”?

Ultimately, we are grappling with the question of what it means to be an American in the 21st century.

Today I'm thrilled to be joined by a terrific panel of people who bring a lot of expertise, experience, and insights to the question of what it means to be an American. I'm going to introduce them to you starting from my left to your right, beginning with Jeremy Robbins. Jeremy is the executive director of the New American Economy, a bipartisan coalition of more than 500 CEOs and mayors, making the economic case for immigration reform. Jeremy previously worked as a policy advisor and special counsel in the office of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, a judicial law clerk to the honorable Robert Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a Robert L. Bernstein international human rights fellow working on prisoners’ rights issues in Argentina, and a litigation associate at WilmerHale in Boston.

To Jeremy's right is Ana Rosa Quintana. Ana is a policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere at the Heritage Foundation. She leads the foundation’s efforts in U.S. policy toward Latin America. The portfolio concentrates largely on Central America, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela. She has authored numerous policy studies and in addition to writing policy papers Quintana's articles have appeared in Fox News, Real Clear World , The National Interest , and The Federalist . Her work has been cited in the Wall Street Journal , The Washington Post , Bloomberg Business , The Guardian , and Deutsche Welle .

To my immediate right is Ali Noorani. Ali is the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy organization promoting the value of immigrants and immigration. Growing up in California as the son of Pakistani immigrants, Ali quickly learned how to forge alliances among diverse people, a skill that has served him well in a career of innovative coalition building. Prior to joining the Forum, Ali was executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition and he has served in leadership roles within public health and environmental organizations.

And finally, to Ali's right is Beth Werlin. Beth is the executive director of the American Immigration Council, a D.C. based nonprofit that promotes laws, policies and attitudes that honor our history as a nation of immigrants. Beth leads the council’s efforts to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to present their immigration claims, that the doors remain open to those seeking safety and protection in the U.S., and that our laws and policies reflect immigrants’ economic contributions through their skills, talents and innovation.

Welcome to my panelists, it's really great to be together today. We all very much appreciate all the work that you've done and all the insights that you're about to share. I'd like to kick us off with a general question, and that is, at its root the question really before us today is what does it mean to be American? I'd love to hear your views on that. Anybody want to jump in on this one to start?

Jeremy Robbins: Well I'm happy to. I'll jump on something that Ali says all the time which is great and incredibly on point which is that whenever he talks about this issue, and I think he does it very smartly, he'll say that immigration isn't so much about politics, it's about culture. That's absolutely right. What it means to be American and what it means to be an immigrant in America is different for a lot of different people. There are two strains running through America right now, one is what it means to be America, it's about an idea. The idea of equality of opportunity or equality general, this is a country that welcomes people. Then there's another, it's a lot about history. It's more backward looking to who America was or where America was. I think some of that is situational, about what they identify in their own life, but also about what they look at towards their future. For a lot of Americans now who look ahead and see a darker future than their parents did, there's a reason a lot of people are gravitating towards that second rather than that first view of what this means.

What it means to be American and what it means to be an immigrant in America is different for a lot of different people. — Jeremy Robbins

Dr. Skorton : Thanks Jeremy. Anyone else want to comment on this one?

Beth Werlin: I'll second a lot of what you've said. I think for my family I know they were coming to the United States seeking safety and protection, and for a lot of immigrants today that's still the case. People are looking to the United States as a place where they can express themselves as individuals, where they can do that freely and openly. That's very consistent with dreams about what it means to be an American.

Dr. Skorton : Thank you, Beth. Ali, thoughts?

Ali Noorani : Go on, Ana.

Ana Quintana: I'll jump to piggy back off of what you said, my family also came here to seek safety. My family's originally from Cuba. My mother's family came in '81 with the Mariel boatlifts, and my dad was in the military and left the military, lived in Venezuela for a few years and then came over here. So many people's stories mirror that even now, right? Rather it's escaping a Communist regime to escaping crime and violence in Central America and this economic instability that exists down there. People view America as that beacon of hope and opportunity. Everybody always says I want to move northward because that's where the opportunity exists.

Dr. Skorton : Thank you.

Ali Noorani: I have to say that the way that the country is changing, when you look at the globe there are 65 million people who have been forced to leave their home, at this point you see the fastest growth in the foreign-born population in the southeast of the United States. The cultural and demographic change that we're feeling as a country is very visceral to people. When they look at that and they see on the news every night, or they're just in their Facebook feed and they see this Syrian refugee fleeing violence, their assumption is that Syrian refugee's going to be their next-door neighbor tomorrow. How, as a country, how as political leadership, civic leadership, do we help people navigate that tension? That I feel like is our biggest challenge.

Dr. Skorton: Thank you. My father was born in what is now Belarus, it was Russia in those days. When I was a kid at home and we would talk about America he would use the term, melting pot. When I went to school they used the term, melting pot. It's one of those thing that I grew up with. Well in 2014, the University of California listed the term “melting pot” as a microaggression. How do you interpret the phrase, melting pot? Is it something we should still aspire to or should we stay away from that term?

Ali Noorani: As I've been talking to organizations and people across the country, what I've realized is that folks, they love the José or the Mohammed that they know, but they're worried about and afraid of the José or Mohammed they don't know. The term, whether you call it melting pot, assimilation, or integration ...[Clinton Administration head of Immigration and Naturalization Service] Doris Meissner, in a interview I did with her, gave me the best quote, where she said, to paraphrase, Americans cherish immigration in hindsight, in present day they have real fears and anxieties.

... what I've realized is that folks, they love the José or the Mohammed that they know, but they're worried about and afraid of the José or Mohammed they don't know. — Ali Noorani

Beth Werlin: You know, probably many of you saw new census data that came out very recently showing that the places in the United States where there were the fewest immigrants are actually the places where people are most showing anti-immigrant sentiment. In some ways that's somewhat surprising, you might think that people feeling the immigrants in their community encroaching on their communities, so to say, may be the ones who actually show some anti-immigrant sentiment, but it's the opposite. It goes to what you're saying, it's about knowing these newcomers to our communities and understanding and appreciating the values that they bring.

Ana Quintana: It makes sense that people fear what they don't know. If you've never experienced something you don't want to walk into a room and the lights be off, because you don't know what's there. I guess that kind of makes sense, and kind of going back to the University of California labeling it a microagression ... I mean that is so absurd. I think that a melting pot is something that we want to aspire to. That's the great thing about America, that we're not a balkanized country where everybody's broken up into these different ethnic enclaves. At the end of the day we all are American citizens, regardless if you eat fried pork on Thanksgiving like my family does, we don't eat turkey, I've never eaten turkey on Thanksgiving. That's the most absurd thing. You eat pork, you eat rice and beans.

You still have your American flag, you never have a Cuban flag, because that's just ... You're an American citizen and we all have ... That's kind of like what we share and what binds this country together, and kind of why people are so ... It's easy to assimilate in America.

I think that a melting pot is something that we want to aspire to. That's the great thing about America, that we're not a balkanized country where everybody's broken up into these different ethnic enclaves. — Ana Quintana

Dr. Skorton : I'm going to invite myself to that next time.

Ana Quintana .: Oh you should, there is an absurd amount of food, yes.

Dr. Skorton : It sounds really good.

Ali Noorani : We do a mix of chicken curry and turkey.

Ana Quintana : Yeah.

Dr. Skorton : That's great. Jeremy, any thoughts about this?

Jeremy Robbins: Yeah, I agree very strongly with all of this. The one place I'd push back a little bit, and where we struggle as an amnesty organization is that it's more than just being exposed to people and facts, right? I look at places like Lewiston, Maine, which is a great opportunity but also challenge when you think about the immigrant story, that this is a place in the whitest state in the country and now the oldest state in the country, where it's happening what's happening a lot in America. Just depopulating, industries leaving these towns that are very economically depressed.

In Lewiston, where the industry had gone and the main street was largely shuttered, you had a large influx of Somali refugees. They started coming and then when their families were there, more people started coming because they knew people there and there was a community. You start having race riots. Like you said about Doris, that in the moment immigration looks really tough, but in hindsight it looks good. It looked like it was going to be on that trajectory, right? Because they had all these race riots, the mayor went up on national TV and said, "Stop coming." But people kept coming.

Five, ten years later when you look at main street, it's littered with Somali businesses, and when you walk into the Lewiston Sun Journal , the paper of record, and they have the honor roll on the wall, half the names are Somali. That's the great story. People come. Then that Lewiston went overwhelmingly for Trump because the anti-immigrant message really resonated there.

There was some amazing journalism done by the Associated Press and others and going, "Well what's happening here?" Because you go and you talk to the people there and by and large they can all say, "Yeah, that's right. People came in and our town is economically better for it. There are now businesses on main street that we were struggling now they've come back. Still, if the government, really they're helping all the refugees, why aren't they helping us? Why am I still struggling?"

There’s a lot that goes into that, that's economic, that's race, there's a lot of things playing into it, but it's not just that people came in, there was a rosy future and then it got better. There's still a huge challenge facing Lewiston and the larger segments of our country, especially in the southeast, that are still new gateways and are experiencing this in a really profound way.

Beth Werlin: Jeremy do you see that as different though than the past? We've gone through the cycles over and over again, we've had that happen where, you know, “no Irish need apply.” I think we've seen that with every wave of new immigrants. To me it's the same story that keeps repeating ourselves in the United States.

Jeremy Robbins: I think that's right, and when you look at the dialogue of in each generation, the words are even the same. We haven't even become inventive in the way that we push back on immigrants. I do think that there is a central tension between a part of society that really values pluralism and diversity and thinks that that is a good, and a part of society that is worried that that is taking away from the central tenet of why a melting pot should be a good thing to a lot of Americans because it seems that it is, you are coming here, you're adding to America, but you've got to become American. The idea that you're going to change what it means to be American is threatening to a lot of people.

Ana Quintana: The immigration component in Maine that you speak specifically of, so I travel to Maine quite often, northern Maine, pretty much on the Canadian border, it's where my boyfriend's family is from. I think that one of the reasons why they went to Trump or why this message of this anti-immigrant message, I don't think it's so much just on the immigration component, but it's there's so many other different things that are happening in that main social ecosystem, right? Whether it's economic depression, whether it's the second generation of Mainers who have to leave the state to be able to find any sort of opportunity, the ones who stay there have such an absurdly high drug usage. It's just there's so many things that are happening, I don't necessarily think it's just the Somalis have arrived and people are anti-Somali.

It's there is a lack of economic opportunity, there doesn't seem to be a change in the future. Maine's economic trajectory, particularly in district, it's district two, right? That's on the northern side, is on a downward trajectory. I think that's kind of why it's ... I don't know, I just don't necessarily see it as just the anti-immigrant component though. Certainly not.

Ali Noorani: There’s a deep feeling of loss. Last summer as the presidential campaign was reaching a peak, there was an analysis of the Gallup Survey, which was 95,000 person survey per week. What they found is that your typical Trump voter was economically better off than most Republicans, was protected from trade, lived in a culturally isolated community. The determining factor for them to take their vote was that they felt their child would not do better than them. There's this feeling of loss and you kind of mix all these factors up, Trump was able to tap into that anxiety about the other. The question is again, what do you do about that? How do you help people understand that yes, there are tensions as the country is changing, as communities are changing, but I feel like if we don't understand that core sense of loss, that core feeling of loss, we're just talking about microaggressions.

Ana Quintana: Yeah.

Dr. Skorton: Let's drill down a little, tiny bit more on that. The purpose of these discussions is try to enlarge all of our understanding about these very complex issues. Based on polling, Americans who feel economically vulnerable, as you've mentioned, are more likely to see immigrants as an economic threat. Are they justified in feeling this way or is there data behind that? Are immigrants an economic threat to those who are economically vulnerable?

Jeremy Robbins: Certainly I think the reality is the answer is no, immigration is writ large a very good thing for America, but those gains aren't spread equally. I think that immigrants benefit the economy hugely, but they benefit certain segments of the economy hugely. And there are costs that come with immigrants. There are costs that come with anyone. The benefits will outweigh those costs, but when you have costs that are borne locally and disproportionately on a certain population, but benefits that are borne on a different kind of population, more naturally, I think you're going to have struggles.

The reality is this, if you look at immigrants, they are more likely to be of working age, they tend to have a very different skillset than the American born, right? They're much more likely to lack a high school degree, but also much more likely to have a Ph.D. You think about how you compete in a global economy, you want to have diverse talents, you want to have diverse skills. What's happening, there are things happening in our economy that are really scary, right? There are huge riches going to some but it's not being spread. That's happening all over the developed world. Immigration is actually the one thing that we have that a lot of the other countries don't. One of the failures in this debate is that we've allowed immigration to be seen as part and parcel of globalization and automation, all of these things that are changing the economy, instead of being seen as a potential solution to it.

We want to have the skillset in our population that's going to make us adapt to this changing economy, and part of that is home growing it, having a pipeline for STEM and getting people to go to the right things. Part of it's the fact that when people vote with their feet, they want to come here, and that's by and large great for America. Are some people benefiting from that more than others? Absolutely, but that's not a failure from immigration, that's a failure from immigration policy for not being able to spread the gains. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the last time there was a Senate comprehensive bill, found that it added $900 billion to the economy. Now you can have a lot of different views of how you would spend $900 billion to make Americans better off, but that's a lot of money to spend to make Americans better off.

Immigration is writ large a very good thing for America, but those gains aren't spread equally. — Jeremy Robbins

Dr. Skorton: Listen, I'd like to change gears a little bit and take a step away from present day politics and concerns and look in the rear view mirror a little bit about America. Let me ask you what you think history tells us about how immigrants have integrated themselves into American culture. What were the concerns about immigration at the turn of the 20th century, when my dad came over? 19th century? Have the concerns changed? Are things different now or are we really sort of seeing the same things over and over again? What are your points of view on that?

Ali Noorani: We've done a lot of work, for example, with businesses in terms of thinking about immigrant integration or assimilation into the work site. In 1915, Bethlehem Steel was the first company in the United States to provide English classes to their immigrant workforce. You think of 1915, I'm sorry, that's when everybody did it the right way. What we found is that more and more businesses across the country are taking the same steps. We now have a program that works with over 250 businesses to help their staff become citizens. We just finished a second year of a English language program with Publix, Kroger, and Whole Foods in terms of teaching English skills. What we found is that in the second year, almost 40 percent of individuals who completed the program got a promotion because of improved English language skills. They're happy because they have increased opportunities, their managers are happy because they have a more productive workforce. The integration of the immigrant community into the U.S. is happening in incredibly innovative and interesting ways every day.

Dr. Skorton: Very interesting. Others, your thoughts about whether things are different today or whether we're reliving the same things?

Beth Werlin: In many ways, we continue to relive the same things, but I do think there's something different today too. Our world has changed, technology has changed our world, we're much more, I don't know, interdependent upon activities going on in other countries. I look at that, particularly in how we approach the laws and policies around bringing in entrepreneurs and new business to our country, people have other options now. Companies can move from country to country in ways that they couldn't before. To the extent we were a place that people came to brought ideas, there's other places to bring ideas today too, and that's an important thing to remember. We want to continue to be competitive. We value that diversity of opinion, the innovation that newcomers bring to our country. I don't want to see us lose any of that energy. That's something that in this changing technology-driven world is a potential if we're not on top of it.

Our world has changed, technology has changed our world, we're much more, I don't know, interdependent upon activities going on in other countries. — Beth Werlin

Dr. Skorton: Just to jump on that for a moment, this is really one of the biggest issues that I've thought about, a lot of people are thinking about, is how attractive America still is to people around the world, from higher education to the workforce. Today, in 2017, is there something exceptional about the U.S. that continues to make us a beacon for immigrants?

Jeremy Robbins: I think undoubtedly, yes. If you look at one really good, easy way to look at that would just be through where people go to start businesses, right? In a global world, you can go anywhere you want. One of the things that's really interesting about us and the immigration law is that, and most Americans don't believe this when you tell them, but there's no visa to come here, start a business, and hire American workers, which is crazy thing that no matter where you are in the political spectrum, if someone wants to come here, start a business, and have some money invested, they're going to create jobs, probably that should be something that we want.

Increasingly countries around the world are realizing that and they're starting entrepreneur’s visas in all these countries. Their sell isn't, look how great it is to come to Chile and start a business, or even in Canada, look how great it is in Canada. Their sell essentially, like you can't get to the U.S., so come here. Their underlying assumption of their whole visa program is that this is a way to get people who otherwise would come to the United States because the reality is for now people still do want to come here. It's where the capital is, it's where the market is. Because it's easy to start a business, there's an entrepreneurial culture. I think you see that over and over, but like Beth said, I don't think it's inevitable. We've had that advantage over the rest of the world for 50 to 100 years but the rest of the world's certainly catching up. They're using their immigration laws very much as a sword to do that.

Ali Noorani: I would say that's not only in the job creation or the business creation world, but also in the student visa world. I remember 10, 15 years ago and seeing university start campuses overseas in the Middle East. I remember seeing that, it's like okay, that's a huge change because they're going to where the students are instead of trying to recruit the students to come here. Just recently there's press about students going down more and more into Canada than to the U.S. I just think in the long-term we are really undermining not just our economy on a macro sense, but the American worker and their family. That's a real issue.

Dr. Skorton: I was involved personally in two of those projects in the Middle East. A medical school that Cornell University has to this day in Doha and a coed university in a western part of Saudi Arabia. I think what you say is exactly right.

Beth Werlin: I was just going to add, this is also true in many other ideals that we hold here in the United States. Particularly with welcoming refugees. We have for years been a leader in welcoming refugees. We have been a place that people can come. Our doors are open to those seeking safety and protection. To proposals and ideas that might want to limit I think really threaten who we are as a country and the values that are important as Americans.

Ali Noorani: I want to go back to your question because I feel like we're heading down this very negative and dark place. Is America an exceptional country? Yes. For some reason I've been spending a lot of time in Idaho. Idaho is a very unique place. It's incredibly conservative, it's one of the reddest states in the country now. It is a state that has an unemployment rate of about 3 percent, maybe high as 4 percent. Has a dairy industry that is in the top three in the nation. That dairy industry, by and large, those dairy farmers voted for President Trump. Now they are some of the most outspoken advocates for a refugee resettlement, for immigration reform, and really pushing back on the administration because they know that as dairy farmers who have built a business through their family, that their immigrant workforce or refugee workforce is an extension of their family. To me that is exceptional.

Dr. Skorton : Exceptional as a phenomenon in America?

Ali Noorani: Exceptional from an economic perspective, from a cultural perspective, from a political perspective. When we get it right as a country, those are the three things that mix up in the right way.

Dr. Skorton : Very, very positive perspective. Thoughts about that anybody?

Ali Noorani : Come on, somebody else has got to be positive.

Dr. Skorton: All right, I'll take you in a different direction. You were talking about higher education, we talked a little bit about cultural institutions indirectly. When you look at polls in past years, say in the last decade, where many of the institutions in America have fallen and fallen and fallen in terms of public trust. Libraries, museums, archives the military tend to be toward the higher end of the trust range. Focusing on museums, here we are in the Smithsonian Institution. In a melting pot America, if I can go back to using that term, what does it mean to have cultural institutions such as museums that cater specifically to immigrant or ethnic cultures? Is that a good idea, is that something we should go in that direction? It's something that we're actually thinking about quite a bit at the Smithsonian.

Jeremy Robbins: There's an interesting idea, someone who used to work at the Holocaust Museum for a bunch of years is working now trying to start a museum that's going to be the National Museum for the American people. The way that he is framing it, is essentially this question. That we can have a lot of separate museums representing our own ethnic heritages, and I think to me that's a very valuable thing, it's part of America's story. Or you think but the reality is for Americans that for most Americans who want to make those individual stories part of America's story. What he's trying to do is start a museum that would essentially tell America's story through the four almost founding waves. People who came here 10,000 years ago, people who came up until essentially the Civil War time, the slavery story as well, then sort of the immigration wave of the late-19th century, and then post-1965. I think that's an interesting idea, I'm not sure one's right or wrong.

It goes to your question about do we want to be the melting pot or do we want to value pluralism? I think the answer is how do you do both without cheapening either? Which is a long way of saying I'm not sure I have the right answer as to whether having ethnic-focused or group-focused museums is a good or a bad thing. There's a lot of value of doing it; those are hugely important stories to tell, they get lost in the American narrative. To make it part of a larger America you have to tell them as part of a whole American story.

Dr. Skorton: That's very helpful, and actually the tact we're taking at the Smithsonian is really to try to do both. We do have museums and areas in museums that are focused very much on a particular area, culture, civilization, but we also have for example this very new exhibition in the National Museum of American History, “Many Voices, One Nation,” which really tries to do the second of what you were talking about. That's very helpful. In fact, I'm going to say those things and pretend it was my idea.

Ali Noorani: I would say that in this moment in our history, where it feels like our politics are so divisive, the role of institutions is more and more important. I think of an institution as everything from your elementary school, to your university, to your library, to your museum, to your national park. Over the summer my vacation was to drive from Idaho back to D.C. In every town that I stopped in I tried to go to the museum, tried to touch as many parks as I could. I was amazed by the diversity of people in the parks, the diversity of people in the museums, and the diversity of the representation of the exhibits themselves in the museums. That the role of cultural institutions, it's more important than ever.

Dr. Skorton : Glad to hear that because it sounds like full employment for me.

Jeremy Robbins: Right, and the one thing I'd say on that, which sort of goes back to your earlier question, is that politics and culture aren’t linear as much as they're cyclical, right? This is a very challenging time in some ways, but also a time of opportunity in others, in that you almost need those moments where institutions are in doubt to be able to galvanize people enough to make progress. I'm actually optimistic that yes, most cultural institutions, if you look at the trust in the media, it's incredibly low, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way. That's also created, if you look at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal , their subscribers have gone up, their investment in high quality journalism has gone up. You're seeing that in institution, after institution, after institution, that's almost refortifying to meet the challenges of a very different age.

Dr. Skorton: Well moving from cultural institutions to culture writ large. Is it fair to have the expectation that we're going to be able to develop a shared common sort of suite or ensemble of customs that help define what it is to be an American? How has the Internet changed the idea of developing this kind of common culture? Because you can imagine two worlds, one in which people really follow the cultural attributes that they were brought up with, and one in which we somehow come together with a common ensemble. Is it fair to have this expectation, that we can come together in a common culture?

Beth Werlin: I think so. I'll take an example we're struggling with in a very different setting, which is in the workplace. The workplace is changing, right? People work remotely now, people work at different hours of the day, but yet we're actually able to use technology to find ways to connect in different ways that are more personalized and customized to the needs of each office, of each community, of each person. The same thing is happening with respect to our country. Yes, it's growing, yes, we're bringing in different people from different places, we're bringing in new customs, but we're also taking advantage of new ways and new technology to be able to enable us to connect in both very personal ways and as a community.

Dr. Skorton : It's a beautifully optimistic way to look at things. I share that so it must be right.

Ali Noorani: Last year I wrote a book called, There Goes the Neighborhood . A number of the interviews that I did were with folks who, are immigrants themselves but their families ... Or their families are immigrants and they were born here. Through these conversations I started to think of this as a, think of a framework through which this common set of values is developed. It's a dynamic set but there's a path that I started to think about where people go from identifying, let's say somebody comes from Mexico. They come and they see themselves as a Mexican. Then they see themselves as a Mexican-American. Then they fit into this larger world of Latino. Then their kids say, "Well I may be a U.S. citizen but I'm going to go back and see myself as a Latino or Latina." There's this changing set of identity.

Then people integrate into the U.S., they become citizens, they vote, they start businesses. Then ultimately, they are influencing systems by serving on boards, by running for office. We are reaching a common set of values through steps of identity, integration and influence, where people are identifying as American, going back and forth between where they came from, integrating into society but then also trying to change the idea of America. I just think that's a good thing.

Dr. Skorton : Other thoughts about that?

Ana Quintana: Change the idea of American in what sense? Because you brought up the issue of Mexicans, when they come to this country and then they identify as Mexican-American and then into this broader scope of Latino, Latina, Hispanic, which I to this day will never understand even though I'm supposedly classified in that, I just don't get how I am. I see myself as an American of Cuban heritage, right? I'm a first generation American, my parents are from Cuba, and I'm from northern Cuba, a.k.a. Miami, because Miami's an incredibly unique place which I will forever call northern Cuba.

I think what's happening, and I say northern Cuba as a joke, but there tends to be kind of within different communities, within the Mexican community, within the Salvadoran, Honduran, just this kind of habit of folks keeping their culture, which is obviously what we should all do, but allowing their culture to define their identity and allowing that to not translate into what it means to be American. American is not eating apple pie because apple pie is disgusting, it's believing in America, believing in the exceptionality of America and the rule of law, and what it means to be an American citizen.

... there tends to be kind of within different communities just this kind of habit of folks keeping their culture, which is obviously what we should all do, but allowing their culture to define their identity and allowing that to not translate into what it means to be American. — Ana Quintana

Ali Noorani: I think you're right, but I think you also prove my point, because you said you see Miami as northern Cuba, right?

Ali Noorani: Miami is a uniquely American city because it's a very diverse city. There are parts of Miami that call it northern Cuba, parts of Miami that call it Miami and part of the U.S. We can react to people affectionately calling Miami northern Cuba in a defensive way, or we can react to it in saying, "Okay, that's great." Miami is this thriving, vibrant city that is the gateway to the southern hemisphere in many ways. That is a beautiful American experience. We're all going to see that differently. We have a tendency to react to those things in a negative fashion, whereas I think it's great if the Cuban community calls it northern Cuba. It's Miami, Florida, in the United States. I think you kind of made my point.

Ana Quintana: What worries me is the idea of that overlap not happening. Of folks saying, "I'm going to keep my culture and that's going to completely define my identity, and I'm going to completely continue identifying with my country of origin," rather than making that step and assimilating.

Ali Noorani: That's why this definition of identity is so fluid. People through their lives, through generations of families, that sense of identity changes but at the end of the day as people are becoming American they're looking to influence America. Running for office, owning businesses, playing that leadership role in whatever way they see fit. When you ask the question of a common set of values or customs, there's an assumption that that is a very static set of values and customs. That has never been the case.

Dr. Skorton: When you say that has never been the case, the argument that you're making, which I resonate with, I think you could have made the same argument 50 or 100 years ago, the different technology and so on. Perhaps in a way things appear to be changing and certainly the rapidity of information dissemination is different, but the process feels the same to me.

Ali Noorani: It does. Then when you look at what's happening in Europe, for example, the role of ethnic media in the U.S. is incredibly important for a couple of reasons. Number one, it helps the immigrant community integrate or assimilate to the U.S. But it also helps people who are born here and been here for generations to understand the immigrant community. There's a locus of information in language that people can say, "Okay, this is who is moving to my neighborhood, and from a policy perspective this is how I engage." Or, "This is what I need to do as an immigrant." In Europe there is no ethnic media infrastructure other than the Internet. The information that refugees or immigrants from Morocco and Belgium, they only get information about Morocco, they don't necessarily get information on Belgium. Your Belgium official doesn't necessarily get information about Moroccans who are new. There's interesting things underneath the surface too.

...the role of ethnic media in the U.S. is incredibly important for a couple of reasons. Number one, it helps the immigrant community integrate or assimilate to the U.S. But it also helps people who are born here and been here for generations to understand the immigrant community. — Ali Noorani

Dr. Skorton : Very interesting. Social media of course has blown that up a lot and changed things.

Jeremy Robbins: Well I would say on the social media front, it plays both ways. Social media drives you apart in a very profound sense in that I can go on social media and only see people like me. I can only see people who have an exact interest. At the same time that also gives you collective power that makes people more vocal in society and more like Ali's suggesting. Your point about the Hispanic, probably like, "Why are we Hispanic? I'm Guatemalan, I'm Colombian." And we're all different, we're treated the same. There is some notion about how that Hispanic identity actually in some ways probably increases the Americanization as much as it does make people feel separate.

I'll give you one example. Yesterday I did a meeting with Univision, and at Univision they're talking about their corporate sponsors. People in America, businesses in America right now, the American Pepsi and all these other companies, they're huge American companies, they really want to reach the Hispanic audience because they think that there's a huge amount of buying power there and it's a growing audience with a growing club. So they can use social media to target that audience. Those are some of the most American brands, the things that become American culture being directly inputted through social media through other ways to try and be in front of people. As much as you can isolate yourself, there's a way that you find instead of being alone as this single person who feels like an outsider, you have a group. That group then, as Ali's suggesting, does very much become an integral player in society.

Dr. Skorton: That's very interesting. Of course if more people would follow my own Twitter feed, I think a lot of this would be clarified, but I digress. Speaking of social media, let's move just for a moment to traditional media. There's always a part in conversations where you want to take a shot, or some comments, or tell the media how to do their business. How could the media do a better job of covering the topics related to immigration in our country? This is one of the things a lot of us are talking about, maybe more among the most commonly discussed topics. What advice could we give to our colleagues in the traditional media?

Jeremy Robbins: There's been some actual wonderful journalism. A lot of the journalism around immigration tends to focus on law and order, security, terrorism, and things that are sensational and will be clickbait. That's just a reality of the media. There’s been some phenomenal journalism of late, of looking at how immigration impacts a town and doing deep dive, longer form journalism. Those are pieces that don't probably get nearly as many clicks, but when they do have a much higher and longer impact. I'm not in the business of media, I'm not going to tell editors what to do, but the extent that those are out there, I think those do change hearts and minds because you can actually see over a longer term how impact happens.

One of the problems with immigration and understanding immigration generally is it's very natural to see our economy as a zero sum game, right? This job either goes to an American or an immigrant. What's much harder to see is how the economy interrelates. That if you can get the right worker, companies grow, they're more dynamic, it creates more jobs. You don't see, unless you're working for an immigrant founded company, you don't see the job that was created at this company because the immigrant on the team had the right idea or played the right support function. You just see the job. There's a role that journalism can play that's very important in telling the larger picture. There's actually been a lot of good work doing that, I just think it's the nature of media right now that the majority of the stories are going to be more sensational and less nuanced.

You don't see, unless you're working for an immigrant founded company, you don't see the job that was created at this company because the immigrant on the team had the right idea or played the right support function. — Jeremy Robbins

Ana Quintana: Even when they cover the sensational aspect, it's such kind of like a superficial MS-13 is from El Salvador and they're terrorizing the streets and they're going to terrorize America. It's like all right, let's do a deeper dive here and actually look at what exactly is happening on the ground in the northern triangle of Central America. That's an area that I specifically focus on. I don't think folks are really looking enough at the political crisis and how this is something that's going to continue. How the unaccompanied minor crisis that we had on our border in 2014, that's going to repeat itself because the conditions in these countries have only gotten worse. The only reason we're kind of seeing a decrease is because Mexico is increasing their efforts to guard their southern border with Guatemala. Also, when folks tend to criticize Mexico and the Mexican government, their security translates into our security and Mexico has done an enormous job at helping us out.

I think that's only putting a band aid on the situation. Until we get to a point where policy makers, and this is where the media can play a role, in kind of highlighting, doing a deeper dive, longer-form analysis or just highlighting how MS-13 terrorizes a town specifically in El Salvador, Guatemala. I don't think that we're going to have proper ... I don't think in America, rather, we're going to have a proper understanding of immigration dynamics.

Ali Noorani: I look at the media through my day job as an advocate. I would agree with what both of you have said in terms of the great journalism that's been done and the longer, deeper dives that are happening. There was an article a couple of days ago about Hallmark Television, that is the fastest growing network in the country. They are running shows that are warm and fuzzy, that are speaking to the geographic and figurative middle of America. My question is, okay, how are those shows talking about this issue? Are they talking about it at all? We've done work with Christian radio stations. As advocates we have to understand what are people listening to, reading, or watching? Then being able to engage the media, those media outlets in particular, and being able to put forward a conversation or a strategy around immigration that's based on the culture and values of that audience. Not trying to have the political, the policy conversation that we want The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal to have. That's not a conversation that resonates at all with the majority of Americans.

Dr. Skorton: You know, actually one of the hopes that we have for Second Opinion is that people will utilize a toolkit that we put on the web with each conversation which we're calling Vox Populi , Voice of the People, where you could take some of the questions that we're discussing and some of the good work that you've done and other readings that we'll list, and have a conversation like this around the dinner table or whatever.

I want to switch gears for a minute and talk about something a little more arcane but of great interest in this area, and that's the H-1B program, the visa program. Just curious, at this moment in time there's been debate and discussion about this for a long time. At this point in time how do you see the benefits and the costs of the program? What changes should we be making? How does it help and hurt different parts of our economy? It's an important issue. Anybody want to jump in on this?

Jeremy Robbins : I'll probably have very strong feelings.

Beth Werlin: Our organization, we work with a lot of immigration lawyers, our partner organization is a bar association of immigration lawyers. I hear a lot about the H-1B program from their perspective, and it's gotten to the point where they're challenged, they don't know how to advise their clients who are looking for employees and they're not finding what they need here in the United States, which raises questions about how we can do a better job to be making sure we're training our own U.S. citizens to be qualified for jobs that we're going to need in the future. At the moment they're struggling, they're not sure how to advise their clients because it's become an unpredictable, unreliable system for making sure that companies are getting workers that they desire and that make their company successful.

That's a challenge, the fact that a program has become unreliable. There's a lottery system, you're not sure if it's going to pan out, if you're going to get a visa. From the lawyer’s perspective it's an awful lot of work to apply for one of these visas. I mean it's expensive, you put a lot of time into it, it's unreliable, and yet they're still doing it. That signals to me that there's a challenge here that's presented, that companies are not being able to find the workers they need and that the system isn't set up right now to fully assist them and enable them to bring in the employees that would help make their company successful and ultimately help create more jobs, more buying power, and all of that.

Dr. Skorton : Very helpful.

Jeremy Robbins: I'd say on the flip side of that, this goes to the heart of what you'd want an immigration like a work visa to do. That on the one hand you want to bring in talent that can help our economy grow, that can help our country, but on the other hand you want to make sure that you're protecting workers and this visa does nothing. The visa is very much broken in a way that's not working for American workers or for companies. The idea that there should be a limit on the number of smart people that come in is a strange idea to begin with. We want people to come and innovate. There's all sorts of good research showing that if you can bring someone in, they get a degree in science, technology and math, they come and stay and work in our workforce, they're creating American jobs.

There's an idea that on the one hand you want to drive more Americans into STEM. That's where the jobs are, that's where the growth is, that's where innovation is. That's a long-term process. In the meantime you have companies, the Facebooks of the world, the Googles of the world, but also manufacturing companies that are selling our manufacturing goods around the world and creating all these good jobs, that they need those type of workers to design their products. Caterpillar is a great line where their mining equipment has more lines of code in it than a jet airline. Caterpillar sells to 190 or 200 companies around the world, they're creating a lot of jobs in Peoria, Illinois, but they need some designers, and some engineers, to be the people who can help design those products.

Now we have a system, which as you mentioned, there aren't enough visas and so they go every year by lottery which is a very strange way to decide who should come here, by random lottery. At the same time, a lot of visas are used in a way that maybe doesn't benefit American workers, that we have a system of what you should have to pay people that was made in the ’90s when being a tech worker in the ’90s was a really different thing than today. There's some really obvious fixes. You want to make sure that companies are paying a fair wage, you want to increase the number of visas and make sure they're going to, both for companies that are driving innovation. You want to better protect American workers, you want to incentivize people to take those temporary workers and make them permanent so they're bargaining the same way Americans are. There are a lot of fixes that have a lot of support if you could actually get bills on the floor to vote on them. That’s the kind of stuff we're all working on.

Dr. Skorton: Following along your point about innovation in the sense that you're talking about the tech industry for example, because of the coding example, guest worker programs, sort of the darling of the tech industry to some extent. What's your point of view on that, Jeremy or others?

Jeremy Robbins: The H-1B visa, what's interesting is that it's a guest worker program, but it's a one dual-intent visa. By that, the intent is that you can come for it as a guest worker but the idea is that you're going to come to stay. You were president of Cornell, I'm sure the engineers graduating at Cornell, probably half of them are foreign-born. Training the best minds in the world and then sending them abroad to compete against us is a really strange economic strategy. Do I think that you should bring people in if you can, someone's trained at Cornell, if we can get them to stay, and work, and help drive our economy? Absolutely. Should we want to get people who are going to come here and stay? I think it's not going to be the answer for everyone, but absolutely, we want to keep talent here, we want to grow our economy. The H-1B is maybe a temporary way to do that, I think there are a lot of other ways to do it too.

Dr. Skorton: Should we be looking north to the Canadian sort of merit-based point system? Would that be a step forward, or not a good idea for the U.S.?

Ali Noorani: We have to strike a balance. We have to strike a balance where we’re acknowledging the fact that our economy needs the skilled engineers as much as it needs the skilled farm worker. We need to make sure that we're recruiting workers into the U.S. that can fill those needs. When we compare, it's in vogue right now to compare our immigration system, our economy, to Canada or Australia because of their merit-based approach. The fact is that our economies could not be more different. Our economy is exponentially larger, exponentially more diverse. Our nation is much larger and more diverse than Australia or Canada. There are elements of the program that can be brought online, if you will, but assume that we go from the broken system that we have now, to all of a sudden saying, "Okay, if you get 100 points you get in." We're just creating more problems. In 2013, the Senate passed legislation that I think created a balanced approach to legal immigration. The problem is that, Jeremy said, we haven't had the political will to get it onto the House floor.

Beth Werlin: I'll just throw in one aspect of our current system which I don't think we ever want to lose is the importance placed on family and family values, family unification. Some of the proposals around point systems lose some of that. Lose the aspects of family, that families help you integrate into societies. Families provide all sorts of benefits that you can't always measure in the same way you can do ... Even economic benefits, that it could be that the mom's taking care of the children or the elderly family members, and how do we quantify all of that? We've always had a strong system that valued family and relationships, and I don't think that's something we want to lose.

I'll just throw in one aspect of our current system which I don't think we ever want to lose is the importance placed on family and family values, family unification. Some of the proposals around point systems lose some of that. — Beth Werlin

Jeremy Robbins: One other thing I just note quickly is that there's a little bit of sleight of hand in the way that the Canadian and Australian systems are used, suggesting that, oh well we're going to move from our system to their system, we're going to do it. The bill that was introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and Sonny Perdue, it's like we're going to move to a merit system, not by adding more visas for STEM workers, but by slashing family based immigration. If you look at Canada and Australia, they do have a hugely higher portion of their visas that go for merit, for people who fulfill needs in the economy, but they also give more visas for family.

The notion that you have to do one or the other, that if you're going to give more work visas therefore you should give more family visas, that's a false conflict, and one that neither Canada or Australia deal with it. They let in two-and-a-half and three-and-a-half times more immigrants than we do. I think, yes absolutely, should we have a system that is more merit based? Yes in the sense of, we can help our economy and leverage one of our greatest competitive advantages which is that whether it's a skilled engineer or the skilled farm worker, that people who want to work hard want to come here. That, at the same time, doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that therefore we should do it by shutting down family based immigration and the traditional ways that we've had our system work that have done really well for the U.S.

Ana Quintana: Yeah, no you're totally right. We definitely need to kind of strike that balance. It isn't a black or white issue where it's like all right, we completely slash family migration. Because if that was the case my family would never be here. They would still be in Cuba and they would still be living completely miserable lives. That's another component of as to why this country's great. It's like all right, let's find a way of fixing our immigration system so we can actually bring the people who we need here, not let it be on this absurd lottery system, which just makes no sense. I mean imagine, how do we even explain that to another country or to folks abroad? It's like, well you know, you might be super qualified but it's going to be this lottery and I'm just going to pick your name out of a hat and you might get picked or you might not. That's embarrassing.

I think that the RAISE Act again, it's something that's kind of like, well do we really want to go that far? We got to strike that balance. It appears quite difficult in this political environment to kind of find any sort of balance on anything.

Let's find a way of fixing our immigration system so we can actually bring the people who we need here, not let it be on this absurd lottery system, which just makes no sense. — Ana Quintana

Dr. Skorton: Well one difficult and touchy issue that I feel we need to explore a little bit as a group is that of crime. It's one of those things that we hear a lot about. Multiple studies have shown that immigrants are in fact less likely to commit crime than native born U.S. citizens, although critics of those studies say, "Well, you're lumping those who came in one way versus those who came another way." What's your point of view about the evidentiary base of this? The notion that somehow an increase or change in immigration would affect our crime profile in the country? Anybody have a view of that?

Beth Werlin: As one of those organizations that issued one of those reports, I'll have to say, our researchers feel really confident that this study showed that higher rates of immigration correlate with reduced levels of crime. We're sticking with that. What we see is an individual incident sometimes making the news on the front page when there's an instance of an immigrant who committed a crime. The same can be said of U.S. citizens, a U.S. citizen could commit a crime. We're never going to eliminate crime entirely. The good thing is that crime rates have gone down recently as immigration rates have gone up. I think it's always been a red herring in the conversation. Unfortunately it's scary, crime is scary.

Any association that is made with an immigrant it kind of puts a blight on immigration, but we have to take a step back from the sensationalism at times. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be upset when there's a crime, we should. We should do what we can to make sure immigration is done in a way that ... Currently we do have laws that might exclude someone who has a criminal record from the United States. We have a lot of laws that protect the United States from people coming in who might try to do danger. We have those laws in place. I think the real question turns to what's the relationship with local police officers and immigration. That's where things get a lot more complicated. There's a lot of good evidence that communities become safer. Local communities are choosing to separate immigration and local law enforcement efforts because they know that communities are safer when those two things are separate. When immigrant communities feel safe to be able to call the police to report on crime, to be able to cooperate with local law enforcement efforts in order to reduce crime in communities and that's where the focus should really be. What kind local initiatives can we put in place to make sure that communities are safe, that the immigrant population is working with local law enforcement when needed?

Dr. Skorton: Thanks Beth. Other thoughts about this?

Ali Noorani: So we do a lot of work with law enforcement. We've gotten to know Republican sheriffs, Democratic sheriffs, chiefs of big cities, small towns and none of them ... and myself in the forum, we don't want to live in a sanctuary city. We want to live in a safe city. A safe city is a place where every cop on the corner is able to fulfill their oath to serve and protect the entirety of their community and the only way for them to do that is to not be seen as taking on an immigration enforcement responsibility. Unfortunately, a lot of press will say if a local cop is not enforcing immigration law, that's a sanctuary city. But if you talk to that local cop they call that public safety.

The politicization of the law enforcement and immigration question has really undermined the role and the job of local law enforcement and again when you talk to chiefs and sheriffs across the country, they want to live in a safe city. They want to serve and protect everybody and they don't want to be in the business of asking people for immigration status.

Dr. Skorton: Other thoughts?

Jeremy Robbins: Well, I just say to Beth's point about it being a little bit of a red herring. The data's there and it makes sense when you look at it, right? That immigrants tend to move to neighborhoods that are the cheapest because they come here without a lot of resources. What ends up happening, and you see this in city after city after city is that they're moving into neighborhoods where there's a lot of abandoned housing, where there's a lot of blight. Because that's the only place they can afford to live and anyone who realizes that when you get people buying up abandoned housing, when you get them coming opening up corner businesses, when you get life on the street, instead of emptiness on the street, places become safer.

The interesting data about immigrants and crime is not just that they reduce crime or have lower rates than American-born, is that they actually draw natives back. That there's a lot of data showing that for every thousand immigrants that are moving into a neighborhood, it draws about 240 native Americans to move back to those neighborhoods.

So you think about community revitalization, how you ... for a lot of communities especially in the rust belt and the Midwest, where you have these places that are depopulating and all the crime and things that go with that. Immigration has a really positive impact, the flip side of that, which I will say, which is the negative part of integration, is that immigrants come and they commit crimes at a way lower rate than native born, but because integration is a very effective tool and happening at a very fast pace, immigrants catch up in crime, too. By second generation, third generation they commit crimes just like every other American.

Dr. Skorton : But then they're Americans.

Jeremy Robbins : But then they're Americans.

Dr. Skorton: Well, we're going to come to the end of our discussion, but before we do I have to get one more piece of wisdom out of each of you. I'd like you to share, with our readers and listeners and those who are watching this ... any one point you would like to make about our general conversation today? What it means to be an American and the role of immigration. One sort of parting point to those who are hopefully in great numbers enjoying Second Opinion. Anybody want to jump in with this one?

Ali Noorani: I will jump in and say I think the majority of Americans live between two poles, and one pole is there's a strong belief that we are a nation of laws, and there's another pole that pulls on people that says we are a compassionate nation. As advocates, we do the American public a disservice and our work a disservice by assuming that people don't live in that tension and we have thought about this as ... particularly in the Southeast, the Midwest, the Mountain West that are experiencing this cultural demographic change, how do we work with that person's pastor, police chief, local business owner to have that conversation?

Because as a D.C.-based advocate, I'm not going to convince that voter, but the person they go and listen to on church every Sunday, the police chief that drives their neighborhood every week, the business owner who they buy groceries from, those are the trusted messengers, where you can start to have this conversation.

I think the majority of Americans live between two poles, and one pole is there's a strong belief that we are a nation of laws, and there's another pole that pulls on people that says we are a compassionate nation. — Ali Noorani

Dr. Skorton: Thanks.

Beth Werlin: This conversation is just reminding me again what our motto is, that America is a nation of immigrants and our values, as a nation are really reflected, and we continue to want them to be reflected in our immigration laws and policies. Values about equality, fairness, freedom, safety, family, entrepreneurship, innovation, those are core American values and it doesn't work perfectly right now, but I think there's a will and an interest because our values are really rooted in those issues to continue to find ways to really perfect some of that.

Dr. Skorton: Thank you so much.

Ana Quintana: I would just say as someone who works on foreign policy, I would just hope that folks take the time to kind of look at the situations abroad, because I think prevention is the best medicine, right? We could've prevented what's happening in Syria and we didn't. And now look at what we're dealing with and look at what the Syrian refugees are dealing with. For whatever it is that we are experiencing the brunt of it, that humanitarian catastrophe is heartbreaking, the same thing with Central America and now we're seeing it with Venezuela. That's something that, again, could have been prevented, so I would hope that rather than looking at immigration as just a domestic policy issue, it is undoubtedly a foreign policy issue as well.

Dr. Skorton: Thank you, Ana

Jeremy Robbins: I think that’s right, it starts abroad, but then as Ali was suggesting, ultimately, like all politics it's hyper local and that one of the things I'll say about what it means to be American ... like, our country is changing and that there is a lot of opportunity to think about how we meet that change. Immigration is a huge opportunity, but it's also not easy. One of the things that has been inspiring for me, if you think about this ... we're working in 50 communities, almost all in conservative states. Right now that have said all right, we recognize this is a potential, so how do we leverage it? How do we make sure that when people are coming in we're going to minimize sort of this stress and conflict of change and leverage it for growth?

Community after community, whether it's in Utah or it's in Texas, or it's in Iowa or it's in Alaska, are standing up and doing that. I think that's helpful. And the one last plug I'll put for something about understanding what it means as your community ... is that we spent the last two years building this resource and trying to make this a local fight and so at this website called Map the Impact, where for every community in the country ... if you want to understand how many immigrants are there, where are they working, how many businesses they started, how much they pay in taxes, like, that's a resource that's available to people.

I just encourage people to take action and stand up. Understand what's going on in their community and figure out how they can play a role, because it gets very disempowering right now to look around politics and say things are changing, how can I do it? But the reality is that people can have a profound impact, both locally and nationally.

Dr. Skorton: Well, on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution I want to thank Jeremy Robbins, Ana Quintana, Ali Noorani, and Beth Werlin for very, very interesting discussion and I learned a lot from it, and I very much appreciate you sharing your wisdom and experience and insights with us and to those very large number of people who are enjoying this I would hope that you would also take the time, if you can to look at some of the suggested readings, some other interviews that you find on the website related to this, a couple of additional one-on-one interviews that I conducted and I hope that you will take the opportunity to check out smithsoniansecondopinion.org frequently and have a good day, everybody.

What Does it Mean to be American?

To me, being American is much more than just being an American citizen or living in American.

To me, being American is much more than just being an American citizen or living in American. It seems people in America have a responsibility, and an obligation to be the best person they can be. It’s part of being an American, and another part is doing your part to keep society running properly. One of the best things about this place we call home, is that the country is basically run completely by the people inside it. Another great thing about being an American is the ability to have the American dream. In an American Creed article by Forbes, the American dream is described as “anyone, through gumption and hard work, can achieve any degree of financial success.” But, a survey ran by Erik Sherman of Forbes magazine said that only 23% of people thought it was common for someone to start poor, and get rich, even though that is categorized by many people as the American dream. A different study by Pew Research center, said that 36% of U.S. adults say their family has achieved the American dream, while another 46% say they are “on their way” to achieving it. This study defined the American dream as “freedom of choice in how to live, having a good family life and retiring comfortably.” Part of the reason Americans feel they haven’t achieved the American Dream and don’t have a chance to, is because our country has gotten so far from its ideals.

In Tribe, Sebastian Junger says, “For humans to be happy, they need autonomy, competence, and community.” People need to feel competent at what they do, authentic in their lives, and they need to be connected to others. Right now, in America people don’t live in tight knit communities, and most people don’t like what they do for a living. This leads to depression, and makes it almost impossible to achieve the American dream. Junger says, “It’s also why when people come back from war they suffer from PTSD and depression.” In order for everyone to get the American Dream, America needs to go back to it’s ideals, that every man is created equal. Another problem is that our prison systems are dominated by minorities. The Federal Bureau of Prisons shows, around 50% of people in prison are minorities. That statistic alone proves to me that the American dream is far from where it needs to be. Right now, everyone doesn’t have the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

America was built on the idea that all men are created equal, and that there shall be liberty and justice for all. However, today our country is split into multiple sections, from our politics, races, and lifestyles. In the past, we still had close to the same diversity, but we were closer as a nation, and didn’t let problems split us apart, rather bring us closer together. Junger, in Tribe, also says, “intact communities are more likely to survive than fragmented ones.” Our nation needs to get back to how people lived community wise, at the beginning of time, where there was tight knit communities.

Being American means to be free and have equal opportunity. Also to have the ability to do what you want, how you want, and where you want. The amendments are what give us those freedoms, like the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion. We’ve strayed from our ideals created by the founding fathers, and became more individualistic, and selfish. America needs to get back to the idea that everyone is created equal.

• Written by Eddie F.
• From Columbus High School
• Group 7 Created with Sketch Beta. Upvote
• citizenship
• Report a problem

Columbus High School What It Means To Be American

This group is comprised of Columbus High School students in Columbus, Montana. They have written arguments with the National Writing Project's C3WP materials to answer the question "What does it mean to be American?" posed by Mark Meckler in the documentary film American Creed.

More responses from What It Means To Be American

More responses from columbus high school, more responses from "citizenship", "dream", and "work".

Ballot measures targeting noncitizen voting approved in 8 states

Voters approved Republican-backed constitutional amendments designed to make it clear that only American citizens can vote in elections in all eight states they appeared on the ballot, NBC News projects.

Clear majorities of voters in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin passed constitutional amendments making it explicitly illegal for noncitizens to vote in state and local elections — even though it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections in those states and at the federal level and even though it rarely happens.

GOP-controlled legislatures in those eight states — where lawmakers control the constitutional amendment process, not citizens — referred those proposed amendments to this year’s ballots.

Election experts have warned that the measures were one of several ways by which Republicans at the national and state levels have sought to drive the unsubstantiated narrative that noncitizens are voting in large numbers in ways that could affect the outcomes of elections up and down the ballot.

No state constitution allows noncitizens to vote. Outside of the eight states with the ballot measures, certain cities and municipalities in three states, as well as Washington, D.C., have allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections.

Supporters of the ballot measures have argued that they are a way to get ahead of any potential problems related to noncitizen voting.

The amendments passed in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin will modify existing language in those states’ constitutions to state that “only” citizens can vote. Current language states that “every citizen” or “all citizens” can do so.

In Idaho and Kentucky, the amendments will insert language in those states’ constitutions stating that “no person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote.

Passage of the amendments marks the latest chapter of Republican's ongoing efforts to put unfounded claims of noncitizen voting at the center of a broader political strategy.

Former President Donald Trump has long made false claims that noncitizen voting is resulting in widespread fraud and that Democrats have helped migrants enter the country to cast those ballots . 

The Republican National Committee’s election integrity campaign also highlighted noncitizen voting as a danger that it warned could be a source of widespread fraud in the 2024 election.

In addition, GOP officials in several states purged or tried to purge their voter rolls with the goal of removing noncitizens, while House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has pushed legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Adam Edelman is a politics reporter for NBC News.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Kentucky Amendment 1 Election Results: Require Citizenship to Vote

This amendment would prohibit noncitizens from voting in any election held in Kentucky.

race called

Nearly all of the estimated vote total has been reported.

Results by county, 2024 general election results, results by state.

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Washington, D.C.
• West Virginia

National Results

• Presidential Forecast

Issues on the Ballot

Past elections.

• 2024 Primaries