I’ve been doing some homework lately on political history and beliefs. Things like, “Why do Republicans worry about immigrants so much?” As in, why are Republicans more concerned with immigrants learning to speak English and “act American” than most Democrats?
To the best of my ability from scouring books and threads and editorials and other sources, I’ve formed a reason that makes some sense: immigrants may dilute understanding of the country’s founding and endanger the nation. This is viewed as immigrants not being patriotic enough, loyal enough, or dedicated enough to a unified America.
This notion seems to come from early days of the republic and came to a head around the time of mass Irish immigration. The belief being, “The country is very new, we here are all of the belief we’re better off without a King. What happens if too many people come here and don’t hold that belief?”
It’s not unreasonable that a fledgling American democratic experiment even as late as the 1860’s might sincerely concern itself with the notion of “dilution”. “We all literally came here to get away from that form of government. We’d appreciate it if you didn’t try to change that.” This is how America’s melting pot theory actually came along as a compromise: you can maintain your customs (we might even come to really like some of them), but this is how our government works. So you can have your cultural-pluralism, but assimilate on a few things, too.
Today this has mutated into more xenophobic arguments. There’s no amount of immigration from, say, Syria, that’s ever going to overtake our democracy with Sharia law. And concerns over draining social services is likely a red herring due to a glut in the market that gets filled. Of course there’s a startling rise in foreign applicants for public benefits once you open it up to them.
If you feed yourself a heavy diet of news on mass immigration, that problem seems much larger to you. However, I’m not convinced the people most vocal about prohibiting immigration are also the same people who understand the historical context. One can also argue that given this crux of the issue, that the American experiment is fragile, it would seem almost insecure to think we’re still insecure today after generations of case law, rulings, policies, and establishment.
I have more faith in the republic today. I have more faith that it will continue to withstand challenges to its principles of democratic rule, for example, than early pioneers and civil-war era citizens likely did.