We Glory in Our Diversity but Turn Away From a New Face; Now We Must Do Better

Michael S. Dukakis accepts his party’s nomination with a paean to his immigrant roots. Network cameras in New Orleans panned George Bush introducing his three Mexican-American grandchildren to President Reagan. These items signal an important shift in our national conversation about the foreign-born that responds to a major new fact about this country: Immigration in the 1980s may equal and might surpass the all-time peak of 8.8 million that was registered between 1901 and 1910. Accentuating the positive is the only sensible course.

The shift probably dates from Congress’ enactment of an amnesty program in 1986 as part of sweeping reforms of our immigration laws. Amnesty has allowed more than 2 million illegal aliens to sign up for a future in this country. In the process, it put compelling smiles and accounts of hard work and dreams on the front pages. Our images of illegal aliens had to begin to adjust, for the evidence showed that “they is us.”

In stark contrast were the images at the beginning of the decade when boats filled with Cubans expelled by Fidel Castro streamed into Miami. The boat-lift ended a few weeks before the 1980 election, having dragged on for six months during the campaign. It contributed to the perception of the United States as a pushover for lesser powers. That helped defeat Jimmy Carter, and it added potency to Ronald Reagan’s call for a stronger America. The immigration battle cry of the new Administration became “regain control of our borders,” and the attention of senior government officials, politicians and the public became fixed on enforcement problems and the dilemma of illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, the nation has been undergoing changes of a far broader sweep. In previous periods of high immigration, more than 80% of the immigrants were from Europe. Today, Europeans account for only about 17% of the newcomers; virtually all of the others come from Asia and Latin America. The large majority have settled in only six states--California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Although New York City remains the metropolitan area with the largest single share, California outdistances all other states and will have a nonwhite majority in about 20 years. Asians and Latinos will soon become the majority in Texas and New York as well.

What has triggered this new flow? Increases in immigration levels were authorized by Congress in 1965 to eliminate the discriminatory national-origins quotas dating back to the 19th Century. Removing nationality barriers opened access that had never existed for Asians and Latin Americans. In addition, we have admitted large groups of refugees who have fled persecution, civil strife and violence. Finally, large numbers have come illegally in search of economic opportunity not available in their home nations.

By and large, the public debate over immigration has centered on economic questions. In the aggregate, today’s immigrants have been a productive economic force, filling vacant jobs or generating new ones and paying more in taxes than they receive in services. But the unanticipated nature of the influxes have left many local areas hard-pressed to provide adequate health care, housing, education and other services. And immigrants displace native workers in particular occupations and regions, especially where they compete with low-income groups and minorities.

Still, the central importance of contemporary immigration may well be political, not economic. The U.S. population today is three times the size it was at the turn of the century, so the impact made by our newest residents has been manageable. Nevertheless, the new immigrants bring with them cultural, ethnic and language differences that are new to the American experience. As a people, we are at once proud of our heritage as a nation of immigrants and burdened by deep strains of nativism and racial intolerance. Immigration tests our commitment to a society grounded in tolerance, participation and equality.

Although the vocabulary has changed from “melting pot” to “pluralism” and from the need for “assimilation” to the problems of “adaptation,” the challenge is the same. We glory in our collective diversity but turn away individually from those who are different. Delivering the American dream is, therefore, a living, ever-tenuous experiment.

The experiment can continue to succeed only if a new generation of leaders practices the politics of inclusion. Adjusting the political discourse to transmit positive images of the newcomers among us is a sign of the times that represents an important step in the right direction.