The bulk of media coverage on current initiatives for U.S. immigration reform has centered on either the fate of 11 million undocumented immigrants already living here or our reception of low-skilled migrant workers. An issue in immigration reform, however, is a more fundamental question of America's orientation to the world-at-large: is it our ambition to be a continual nation of immigrants?
According to a 2010 census about 13 percent of the U.S. population are foreign born. We need policies and a popular rhetoric affirming the sustained presence of persons from diverse countries within our borders. Even if not often spoken of, such a stance seems to be a goal of policy makers advocating for immigration reform. If this reform is to be successful, however, a cultural and attitudinal transformation must occur with Americans' perception of the role and value of immigrants.
One country to look toward for the prospects and struggles of such a transition is Germany. In 2005, Germany enacted new legislation to attract more immigrants from inside and outside the European Union (EU). I studied abroad in Berlin during the 2011/2012 school year, which allowed me to see and hear the result of these initiatives. Leading up to Germany's 2005 immigration reform were internal concerns that the country was perceived as being unreceptive to a diversity of faiths and cultural traditions. This was validated when, even in a city as heterogeneous as Berlin, I would occasionally see a group of men proclaiming (perhaps nostalgically) the virtues of folk German identity. Sometimes this was followed by xenophobic remarks against Turks or North Africans.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, even as I went outside the cosmopolitan borders of Berlin, I witnessed sincere curiosity for other ethnic groups from Germans, in addition to an expressed conflict regarding their national identity. I had the advantage of examining Germany's relation to immigration during a critical juncture in the Eurozone crisis.
As fiscal conditions in Greece and Spain quickly worsened, pragmatic citizens of those states felt compelled to relocate to Germany in pursuit of stable jobs. They were also inclined to critique the economic policy of Germany and invoke its malignant nationalist sensibilities in response to imposed austerity measures.
The atmosphere for EU immigrants was only worsened by German arguments on the street and in the media that good fiscal practices of Germans must suffer due to the ineptitude of foreign states.
While expression of such positions may breed difficult conditions for Germany's goal of immigrant reception and integration, it also ignites an important debate ostensibly absent in the U.S. Wherever one goes in Germany one hears about the benefits or lack of preparedness for a multi-ethnic and multicultural society in the country. Even from Germans weary of the Eurozone's future, my friends from Spain and I would constantly get inquiries on how our language instruction programs were going, how other Germans were treating us and what we hoped to contribute to Germany. An ample amount of people were more interested in how Germany was being transformed from the inside due to our presence rather than how we improved the country's standing abroad or were individually being bettered.
Such interest in how one's state can be improved by the presence of foreigners is rare in the U.S., because the U.S. may come off as diverse enough without foreign populations. Natives too often see America as embodying multiculturalism without representation of people from across the globe. Because this country was built on immigrants, arriving as either enchained, exiled or free willing, we should be especially inclined to express the value of diverse nationalities within a single state, and remind the world of our continual commitment to this principle. It often seems that the reverse is the case, i.e., that America's vibrantly diverse history results in increased isolation and protectionism.
Grounded in the media and political discourse, Americans usually assume this country provides the immigrant something, not that the immigrant contributes something to this country. "We have enough difference," an American might claim. "We are not in jeopardy of producing tyrannical majorities or intransigent traditions." While there are quite a few historical examples I can point out to dispute this remark, I want to conclude with my experience in Germany to evaluate the United States' need for a new orientation towards immigration.
The reactions I received as an American abroad were alarming. Europeans were either ready to castigate me for our interventionist foreign policies or eager to ask questions about the American culture they had always seen in films or heard in music but never experienced up close and personal. Perhaps the most surprising was that folks abroad would make assumptions about the American character: that we were individualistic, lacked interest in international affairs and were highly patriotic.
In other words, people I spoke with felt the nationalism of Americans was more adamant than that of European countries. Although these people were exposed to many elements of American politics and culture, the United States was held at a strange distance compared to other parts of the world. I believe this is because of the rhetoric surrounding our immigration policies, which relies on a damaging notion of American exceptionalism. The U.S. needs to learn from countries like Germany, who (not without apprehension) attempt to negotiate a strong nationalist history with policies and rhetoric affirming the gift of multiculturalism and sustained presence of foreign traditions and cultures.
Michael Harris is a College senior from Chicago, Ill.
Read More
Trending
