As American as Apple Pie (and Samosas and Tacos)

New America Media, Commentary, Rinku Sen Posted: Jul 04, 2008

Editor’s Note: America’s palate reflects its multicultural reality. Its immigration policy needs to catch up to that. On July 4, NAM contributor Rinku Sen wonders what it means to be American. Sen is the president of the Applied Research Center and the publisher of ColorLines magazine. Her book, The Accidental American, will be released in September. Immigration Matters regularly features the opinions and voices of immigrant rights groups and advocates. This essay appears courtesy American Forum. A Spanish version of this editorial is available. Traducción al español

On this Fourth of July, I will be eating hot dogs. While I was trying to fit in as an Indian immigrant child throughout the 1970's, they represented the quintessential American food. I begged my mother to let me have them for dinner every night, instead of chicken curry and rice. She nixed the hotdogs, but sometimes allowed spaghetti and meatballs -- straight from a can.

Hotdogs were "invented" by German immigrants serving their traditional sausages in the hustling streets of the New World, and spaghetti, everyone knows, came from Italy. If I had been celebrating Independence Day 150 years ago, however, neither would have been on the menu. In those days, Germans and Italians weren't considered Americans, or even white. When they fought over the most lucrative street corner for food vendors in the 1880's, the press reported these incidents as "race riots."

I'll be sharing this holiday with a group of restaurant workers, largely immigrants. Along with the hotdogs, we'll have tacos, samosas, falafel. But according to one side of the immigration debate, we can keep our goodies to ourselves. America doesn't want them, or us.

Immigration restrictionists argue not only that we need to stop undocumented immigration, but cut back drastically on legal immigration as well. They argue that this economy -- no longer industrial but focused on information and service -- has no room for masses of poor immigrants. There's a fear that technology makes travel and communication so easy that new immigrants won't break ties with the old country and reassign their loyalty. To them, the telephone is a dangerous device, and communication with relatives a terribly un-American act.

Restrictionists have tried to modernize their argument, but it hasn't changed much through the years. Immigration of the late 19th century was dominated by Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Jews and other groups from southern and eastern Europe. At that time, these new residents were widely seen as inferior to native-born whites. They were reviled for their refusal to speak English, for their political and economic demands on American corporations, for being so poor that they became "public charges" or undercut the wages of the native-born workers, and for their unacceptable sexual behavior.

The Immigration Acts of 1920 and 1924, the most restrictive immigration policies we've ever had, limited new entrants to 150,000 per year, which was less than a quarter of the total immigration rate at that time. These laws crafted large quotas for northern Europeans, while setting limits for countries like Russia and Italy. Thousands of southern and eastern Europeans, however, continued to come.

As immigrants were deported for violating the quota policies, social reformers began to fight for long-time residents who had built families and communities in the United States. These reformers won a series of changes that gave immigration officials the ability to change someone's status.

The liberalization remade the American identity, but kept it white. Mexicans, for example, were left behind by the process. According to historian Mae M. Ngai, they weren't explicitly excluded, but they had little access to the mechanisms through which to change their status, and no one cared to correct that oversight.

In 1929, Congress also passed the Registry Act, allowing people to change their status if they paid $20, hadn't left the U.S. since 1921, and were of good moral character. Of the 115,000 people who were forgiven between 1930 and 1940, 80 percent were European or Canadian. The attorney general began to suspend deportation orders after 1940, and an internal Justice Department study in 1943 revealed that the overwhelming majority of suspensions went, ironically, to Germans and Italians; only 8 percent involved Mexicans. Instead of liberalization, Mexicans got a guest worker program, and in 1954, Operation Wetback, thecountry's first mass deportation program.

Restrictionists have frozen images of a "true" America, as though our identity hasn't changed since 1776. Stasis, however, is a fiction. Cultures do not stand still, nor should we want them to. We have the chance now to remake our immigration policy in the modern era, not by taking it back to the 1920's, but by grappling honestly with the fact that the American identity is always undergoing cultural change. Modernity challenges us to create a policy that finally recognizes the full humanity of all immigrants, without regard to their racial identity.

If we are indeed what we eat, Americans are already eating like the world. It's time for our policy to catch up to our palates.

Related Articles:

California’s Stake in the Integration of Immigrants

Tonight: Night of 1000 Conversations


Copyright (C) 2008 by
the American Forum. 6/08"


Page 1 of 1

Share/Save/Bookmark

User Comments


Gale Petersen on Jul 08, 2008 at 09:33:09 said:

I join you in your call for a humane immigration policy. Seems like few of our elected officials will even talk about it now.


Rinku Sen on Jul 07, 2008 at 14:01:04 said:

My point is not that we need new cuisine, but that our immigration policy is discriminatory and unevenly applied, and always has been. The people we think of now as Americans weren't always so, and were only allowed to become so because of changes in policy. Immigration policy that benefits certain people and disadvantages others is, well, racist, whether that effect is intentional or not. If the US doesn't tolerate racism (I think both conservatives and liberals like to think we're fair), it shouldn't tolerate such a policy.


nativessayno on Jul 07, 2008 at 12:23:51 said:

I think Americans deserve to self-label themselves anyway they like. They can eat any cuisine they like. They can be liberal or conservative, or both simultaneously.

It is obvious that historically we have had a very chequered past in regards to race and immigration. On the other hand, what about our generosity? What about the ultimate
and infinate great american immigrant stories?

Better to keep hitting us in the solar plexus with how grubby and narrow we all are to implement the Open Border rant. The cuisine tie-in; didn't work for me.

Ultimately the author is saying we narrow-minded whiteys benefit from the international cuisine ergo open your borders, quite a huge leap in logic and conclusion.

Those that want to restrict immigration to legal immigration are, at worst: pragmatic. At best: cautious and want our laws obeyed.....oh, but according to Lloron we are "know-nothings" and he has all the answers.

I agree with MaryJ's terse comments. The author is correct on one account: "America doesn't want them, or us", that's very true if they are here illegally, regardless of their "cuisine"!


Lloron on Jul 04, 2008 at 13:10:42 said:

MaryJ-

I wouldn't expect you to understand the high minded dialogue. Go crawl back under your rock with the rest of the "know-nothings". This is a history lesson and a commentary about how we can learn from the mistakes of our past policies. Conservatives always look to the past for public policy inspiration and idealized (often romanticized) versions of society that we should aspire towards. Liberals look toward the future and new ideas that advance the progress of humanity. Liberals tend to believe in science and reason, not prejudice and superstition like conservatives. You need look no further than the "originalist" versus "living constitution" schools of constitutional interpretation for examples of this disparity. Conservatives idealize the values of the founders at the time of convention, rather than believe that the principles espoused in the document can change over time in accordance with society's changing needs. Conservatives=short sighted and backward. Liberal=visionary and progressive. It's easy as that.


MaryJ on Jul 04, 2008 at 10:24:00 said:

This is a retarded and facile commentary. Because we enjoy different foods we need to have unlimited immigration? The liberal-left is so irrational it's mind-boggling.

-->




Advertisement


ADVERTISEMENT


Just Posted

NAM Coverage

Immigration Matters

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.