Defining a Nation

What Factors Define a Nation?

Stew Richland

The first factor that defines a nation is its borders.  Everything from the borders inward is a legitimate part of a nation. Inferred in this definition is the premise that all other independent nations recognize and accept the geographic parameters.  The second factor is language.  In the United States the official language is English. How did this come about? Every child that attends school knows the story of the Pilgrims and the English settlements in Virginia and the growth and development of the 13 colonies. The early settlers spoke English and all business was conducted in the language of commerce which   again was English.  As land became available for settlement in the western territories, immigrants from Western Europe fled their place of birth and headed west to the land of opportunity, America.  In order to survive in this new environment, these settlers adopted the culture of America which included learning and functioning in English.  This process was called assimilation.  The most important element in this assimilating process was the school system.  Teachers spoke English in the classroom, books were printed in English and of course the three “Rs” was taught in English. 

Immigrant assimilation is a complex process in which immigrants not only fully integrate themselves into a new country, but also lose aspects, perhaps all of their heritage too. Social scientists rely on four primary benchmarks to assess immigrant assimilation: socioeconomic status, geographic distribution, second language attainment, and intermarriage.  William A.V. Clark defines immigrant assimilation as "a way of understanding the social dynamics of American society and that it is the process that occurs spontaneously and often unintended in the course of interaction between majority and minority groups"

Socioeconomic status refers to the level immigrants catch up to  Americans in education, occupation and income. In addition, researches agree the longer immigrants reside in America they tend to loose their ethnic attachment. Studies have shown that there is a three level language assimilation model. At the onset the new immigrant attempts to achieve  some level in language assimilation but their native tongue is still dominant. The second generation is bilingual and the third speaks only the national language.  Integration by intermarriage is  another strand in assimilation,  Immigrant name changing also helped in the assimilation.

My purpose for this article is to address the wide variety of views on immigration into the United States.  There are two vital aspects in this issue. Understanding the rational and emotional views between legal and illegal immigration. My view is that the Democratic Party leadership (especially in Congress) and their nominee for President H. Clinton support open borders, and amnesty for all who sneak across our borders. Their sole purpose is to expand the Democratic Parties voting base in order to keep the Democrats in power. 

In order to fully understand this issue one must review examine a bit of immigration history in order to see this issue in its proper context. Historian Frederick Jackson Turner presented his “frontier thesis” in an address in Chicago, the site of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. Turner pointed to expansion as the most important factor in American history. He claimed that “the existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward explain American development.” (Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History)   Turner went on to ponder the idea that now that all free land is now closed how would this impact the growth of America.  Turner asserted, “questioning how American culture and history would develop and whether Americans would retain “that coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and acquisitiveness . . . that dominant individualism” bred by expansion now that the frontier was closed. American foreign policy shifted to expand and acquire overseas colonies and challenge the European giants in the quest to dominate trade in the Far East.  The 1900s saw the birth of a great industrial explosion.  Farms were to small to divide and pass on to the children of immigrants and so many left home and moved to the industrial centers in the U.S. to take factory and manufacturing jobs. This economic boom was advertised in European newspapers, that good paying jobs were available in America and this stimulated another wave of immigration.  This competition for the “so called good paying factory jobs,” gave birth to the rise of the industrial labor movement.  The American labor movements platform demanded higher wages, shorter hours and better working conditions.  They also demanded a  change in the immigration laws that would end or limit immigration from those European nations in which the new immigrants were willing to accept lower wages for the jobs that were now held by union members.  The factory owners on the other had encouraged immigration in order to under cut the labor union movement and to increase their profit margins.  

The Constitution itself—from which all federal powers derive—does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization. Thus, when the government's motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government's motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, and its language is inclusive: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them. This part of the Amendment was included to ensure that former slaves would be citizens of the United States.

But the language of the 14^th Amendment refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government—like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not—and cannot—impose an intent requirement upon infants.

Up to this period of American history, all immigrants who wanted to immigrate to the land whose “streets were paved with gold,” and could prove they would not become a financial burden on the state, and was deemed to be in good health (through a somewhat superficial health exam_  were admitted through Ellis Island and Angel Island in California.

Many nativists began to feel threatened by the influx of Chinese and Japanese immigration into the U.S. and pressured the government to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to virtually end Asian immigration into America.  The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943. This act was repealed because China and the U.S. were allies against Japan.  A side not on this issue, thousands of Chinese immigrants went to Mexico instead of the U.S.  However, there were no restrictions in place that prevented thousands of Japanese to migrate to Hawaii this was known as the “Gentleman’s Agreement.”  The Japanese government protested and contributed to the rising tensions between Japan and the United States.

In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos.

The 1924 Immigration Act set quotas that limited annual immigration from particular countries. The legislation identified who could enter as a "non-quota" immigrant; this category included wives and unmarried children (under 18 years of age) of US citizens, residents of the Western hemisphere, religious or academic professionals, and “bona-fide students” under 15 years of age. Those not in any of these categories were referred to as a “quota immigrant” and were subject to annual numerical limitations. It had been decided that there were to many Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, migrating to America, and so quotas were placed on the number of migrants from these areas based on the census at that time. Later, the quotas were lowered even more.

The restrictive principles of the Act could have resulted in strained relations with some European countries as well, but these potential problems did not appear for several reasons. The global depression of the 1930s, World War II, and stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration policy served to curtail European emigration. When these crises had passed, emergency provisions for the resettlement of displaced persons in 1948 and 1950 helped the United States avoid conflict over its new immigration laws.

In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity. Congress revised the Act in 1952.

Prior to the U.S. entry into WWII, American immigration policy changed so that certain desirable aliens escaping the Nazi’s could enter without restrictions.  These people were writers,  film stars, scientists, doctors and some political activists.  However, FDR had some advisors that advised him that Jews escaping Hitler’s war on the Jews should not be allowed into the U.S.

After WWII, the immigration policy was eased a somewhat  to allow displaced persons to immigrate to the U.S.  In addition, those persons that could prove they were escaping the wrath of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, such as those who supported the 1956 Hungarian Revolution were also admitted to the U.S.

Again I would like to remind my readers that those immigrants were allowed to enter with government permission.  They were not classified as illegal’s. When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, the government decided that those Vietnamese who supported the U.S. cause, should be allowed into the U.S.  This group has been referred to as the “Boat People.”  The U.S. immigration policy has always encouraged and provided fast track immigration to those foreigners who had skills that were in short supply in America.  In South Korea, for example, newspapers would report that certain job opportunities were available to Koreans in the United States. Skills such as nurses, doctors, research scientists could easily obtain visas and then citizenship.  Thousands of Koreas used this route to obtain admission to the U.S.  This method of immigration to the U.S. was legal.

One other point that must be addressed.  The United States Constitution states that any person born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. This Act was originally designed to provide African slaves citizenship.  This is commonly referred to as the “ Birtha Law.”
The United States is the only country in the world that allows this to happen.

There are two types of immigration into the United States.  One is legal. A candidate applies, is vetted and if acceptable is put on the list and waits their turn. The other is illegal.  Crossing the boarder in order to live in the U.S. This method is illegal and anyone that does it is breaking the laws of the United States.  Look at the consequences of this act.  Pregnant women take advantage of the “birtha law” and have their child in the U.S.  You cannot kick the mother out so the child and mother are allowed to remain. What happens next?  Who takes care of this mother and child. The tax payers of the U.S.  The evidence shows that the father sneaks over the boarder and soon after the extended family.  Look at the huge number of children that are coming over our borders.  Not only do they become a burden to every agency funded by tax payer money but they are bringing diseases with them that have long since been eradicated.  This is a threat to all of us. Many of these illegal’s are taking jobs from Americans.  Our economy is growing at a snails pace.  Our economy cannot afford to  support these illegal’s and also provide for all those who are out of work in the U.S.

Many U.S. cities have adopted the philosophy that they will aid illegal’s.  This sanctuary city idea has placed a huge burden on the tax payers of these communities.  Why has the Democratic Party supported open borders, and amnesty.  To win the support of the Hispanic community and eventually gain the vote for illegal’s and expand the Democratic Party base. 

Even if a wall would be built to keep these illegal’s out, just read what is now posted on Customs and Boarder web site provides: a virtual "how-to" guide for illegal aliens in its “Sensitive Locations FAQs,” CBP explains that immigration laws are not to be enforced at any of a wide range of designated “sensitive locations” – so that illegal aliens may be “free” to live their lives “without fear or hesitation”

The bottom line is should the U.S. be responsible for the “Global Poor”? The whole immigration issue has morphed into a disease that no antibiotic can fix. As long as the Democrats use it to fill the U.S. with potential democratic voters and support laws that don’t require some form of ID for voting, for short term political gain, there will be no resolution to this highly charged problem. One last thought.  The vetting process for those persons coming from the Middle East is so tragically unprofessional, that we are letting potential terrorists into our country.  I only pray that you or your loved ones do not become victims of these savages.

This topic is a highly complicated one. I did not realize that I had written so much and yet I have just scratched the surface.  I hope to pursue other aspects of this issue in another posting. I welcome your reaction to my post and please respond at:

phyllisrichland.blogspot.com or on the blog that you find this article posted. Thank you.