By Charles C. W. Cooke
Monday, July 15, 2019
Like both Rich
Lowry and David
French, I consider it flatly inappropriate for the president of the United
States to be telling Americans — rhetorically or otherwise — to “go back where
you came from.” In consequence, you will find no defense of the president from
me, either. What Trump tweeted over the weekend was typically stupid and it was
typically counterproductive, and it deserves nothing less than has been aimed
at it.
But not all criticisms are alike, and, while I agree with
his conclusion, I nevertheless have quite a few problems with David’s broader
argument. This passage especially bothered me:
Let’s also deal with the idea that
the one actual immigrant Trump targeted owes a special debt of gratitude to the
country and therefore temper her critiques of American politics and culture. I
believe Ilhan Omar is a toxic presence in American politics. Her critiques are
deeply misguided. But she should temper her critiques because they’re wrong,
not because she’s an immigrant.
The blessings of liberty accrue to
all Americans, including immigrants. And while all Americans should be deeply
grateful for their freedoms and for American opportunity, it’s a simple fact that
immigrant citizens have actually done something to earn their status. They’ve
often migrated here at great personal cost, learned a new language, built a
life in a new land, passed a test most Americans can’t pass, and then swore an
oath that most Americans have never sworn.
By contrast, what must natural-born
citizens do to earn their citizenship? Survive labor and delivery. That’s it.
If anything, natural-born citizens should exercise the most gratitude. What did
we do to earn our liberty?
I disagree with almost all of this. Legally, Ilhan
Omar has exactly the same rights as someone born here. And she should, without
exception. Culturally, though, the idea that Omar does not “owe a
special debt of gratitude to the” United States is ridiculous, as is the idea
that Omar’s views of the United States should not be affected by that debt. Of course
she should be grateful! The United States saved her from a warzone, let her
stay, accepted her as a citizen, and then elected her to Congress. If one can’t
be grateful for that, what can one be grateful for?
Should Omar “temper her critiques of American politics
and culture”? That depends. Again: Legally, Omar should enjoy every
Constitutional protection available. And, as a matter of course, she should
feel able to take part in the political process on the same terms as everyone
else. But, culturally, it is absolutely reasonable for Omar’s critics to
look at her behavior and say, “really, that’s your view of us?” It’s
absolutely reasonable for Omar’s fellow Americans to dislike her and to shun
her as a result. It is absolutely reasonable for them to consider her an
ingrate — or to believe, as David does, that she is “a toxic presence in
American politics.” And it is absolutely reasonable for them to wonder aloud how
a person who hails from a dysfunctional, dangerous place built atop
dysfunctional, dangerous institutions can exhibit the temerity — the sheer gall
— to talk about America in the way that she does. There is a big difference
between saying “I oppose current federal tax policy” or “I want more spending
on colleges” or “the president is an ass,” and saying that America needs
complete rethinking. As this Washington
Post piece makes clear, Omar
isn’t just irritated by a few things. She thinks the place is a disaster.
It is also absolutely reasonable for Americans to be
alarmed that Omar is being encouraged, both implicitly and explicitly, by a
worrying number of politicians and public figures — figures who, in any sane
culture, would want newcomers of all stripes to believe the place they’d ended
up in was virtuous. Last week, Beto O’Rourke told a bunch of refugees and other
immigrants that America was a tainted, bigoted, white-supremacist nation,
flawed in every particular, stained structurally to the core, and
institutionally set against them. And he did so in public — for public
consumption! — because he thought it would help him politically. That way lies
cultural suicide. It is not only fine for Americans to be appalled by O’Rourke
and his ilk, it is necessary.
As for David’s second argument, I can’t help but feel
that he is getting pretty close here to suggesting that immigrants are in some
way “more American” than native-born Americans simply because they chose to be
here. Or, at the very least, I can’t help but feel that he is getting close to
suggesting that immigrants should be less grateful for America’s blessings than
should those who merely had to “be born” to enjoy them. I object to both these
contentions. By definition, immigrants to the United States either chose
to come here because they thought it was better than where they were born, or
were forced to come here because the places they were in beforehand were
too dangerous for them to stay in. It seems to me that it is far, far more
normal for a person to feel gratitude at being allowed to move to a place of
his choosing — a place in which he thinks he’ll be happier or safer or richer
or freer — than to feel gratitude at merely being born somewhere by accident.
David enjoys the Constitution’s protections because he was born within its
jurisdiction. I enjoy them because I asked nicely and was allowed in by the
existing citizenry. I should be the more grateful of the two of us.
This difference also affects what we should expect of
immigrants compared to the native-born. Americans such as David effectively
just “woke up” here; Americans such as myself explicitly chose to move here,
explicitly chose to become citizens, and explicitly chose to make the promises
and oaths that were associated with both. If those who merely “woke up” here
don’t like the status quo, they bear no responsibility for that whatsoever. If
those who chose to move here don’t like the status quo, they bear a lot
of responsibility, because, unlike those who were born into it, they knew
exactly what they were getting into (this isn’t true for refugees, but, as
discussed earlier, they have their own reasons for eternal gratitude).
Lest I be misunderstood, I will reiterate that I do not
think that there should be any legal differences between how immigrants such as
myself engage politically and how native-born Americans such as David engage
politically. I am for the Constitution, and for equal protection for all. But I
do think that it is reasonable for native-born Americans to recoil when
people who elected to come here try to make sweeping changes to the American
system — or, even worse, when those people buy into the idea that the United
States is corrupt and evil from the root. It is not only an acceptable cultural
norm to expect immigrants to like America, to believe that it is worthwhile as
it stands, to want to assimilate to its institutions and ways, and to avoid
trying to overthrow its presumptions, it is a crucial one. There is a reason
that we have the citizenship test that David mentions, and there is a reason,
too, that one is not permitted to join the ranks if one is Communist or a Nazi,
if one hopes to suppress religious liberty, or if one wants to overthrow the
government: We expect the people who move here to meet basic standards, and we
insist upon those standards before we treat them identically to those who have
been brought up having the American tradition passed down to them by their
parents. That many, if not most, do this admirably is a good thing. But there
is no need to lionize them at the expense of everybody else simply because the
president is imprecise in his language — or worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment