Civility

Some people bemoan the increasing polarization of American political society as a threat to national unity. 

But that is the wrong emphasis. Americans, like people everywhere, have differences of opinion. The stronger the feelings, the deeper the divide, the further apart the poles. 

Thus, it is accurate to say that polarization has always been a factor in America. The absence of unity, in a political and social sense, has never been a threat. Its lack is not a problem as such for our country. But unity in a national sense is vital. If we do not believe that we share common values, how can we feel loyal as Americans to our nation? Rather, we find ourselves increasingly living in a country with others with whom we believe we share little in common and, in fact, often consider foes, even enemies, of what we believe in. 

With that mindset, polarization is truly a danger. 

Since America was founded on ideas and values, there used to be a presumption that differences were about means to attain a common end. The ends of freedom, tolerance, etc. were not disputed. Those holding opposing viewpoints on issues were excused as being misguided or uninformed. This was the default opinion unless there was evidence of corruption or malevolence. In effect, those holding contrary opinions were given credit at least for acting in good faith. 

For many Americans that is no longer true. To express an unfavored view for some is to utter thoughts beyond the pale. That person is not accorded credit for good faith. Rather, it is taken for granted that he is either a fool or knave (or both). For blunt examples, tune in the opinion makers on MSNBC/CNN and Fox News.

Some, like President Biden, accuse opponents of being against democracy and, implicitly, anti-American. 

That sort of talk clearly challenges the principles Americans have, with few exceptions like the Civil War, long lived by. To question the other side's patriotism is to dispute that they share a commitment to the nation, founded as it was, on loyalty to ideas and values 

The long-term survival of the United States of America depends on a return to civility. Tolerance and respect for those expressing different views must regain favor. This is not hyperbole. Viewing the other side across the moat and barricade as the enemy (as many on both the left and the right appear to see those on the other side) it is a sure road to national suicide.  We require unity as a people to survive as the Land of the Free. 

Is it any wonder that our real enemies – like China and Russia – are doing what they can to foster hostile divisions among us?

  

Immigration

 America is an exceptional nation for many reasons, some bad (racial history), but mostly good: (high regard for freedom, individualism, generosity, openness, tolerance and the world's longest lasting democracy are examples of America's many positive traits).

 But we are different – some might say deficient – from essentially every other nation in the world.  Except for our first few decades of existence, the US has never been homogeneous.  Our citizens, unlike elsewhere are not bound together by a common history or heritage tracing into the past for many, many generations. What binds (or was intended to bind)

Americans together?

It used to be a given that shared values – of the sort recited above – was the uniting glue – not ancient heritage. During periods of large immigration influxes which occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the assumption was that peoples from around the world were attracted by these values and became human ingredients for the American melting pot. The country’s demographics changed but the core of the nation remained constant. Sure, the melting pot idea was just that – not always realized. But look around. America is populated by one-time immigrants from myriad backgrounds who generally get along and share the American dream of betterment.

Times they are a changing…

Our immigration laws were intended to promote healthy and productive integration. Needed skills were desired as were those with family members already here and presumably absorbed in American ways.

The policy was what was perceived to be America's national interest. Immigrants are valued as contributors to the country and supporters of that broad category of American values.

[There is a myth that US policy should reflect the inscription on the Statue of Liberty affixed in 1885:;

 

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

The noble sentiments of the poem are uplifting but poetry is not, nor should it be, the foundation of policy.]

Largely unrestricted migration of course flaunts these concerns but even if the unwanted influx were halted, such immigration policies are questionable.

Applicants who have needed skills. Their aptitude doesn't translate as such into a willingness to adopt American values. Consider the anti-semitic protests on American campuses of late.  Many protesters seem to be those whose heritage was from Muslim countries.  Their ire was directed at a staunch US ally and those believed to be Jews. Some even declared by signs and voice that hostility to the nation in which they reside and may even be citizens. [“Death to America” was a chant of some. How many of the protesters share that sentiment? Why are such people living here? Freedom of speech does not sanction calls for the destruction of fellow Americans.  They may have valuable skills but national interest overrides our need for them. Peddle their wares and bigotry elsewhere.]

Applicants with family connections. There is at least a superficial connection between having a relative already here and a readiness to follow American principles. Yet statistics tell us the impact of the policy (with allowance for illegals) is the presence of immigrants from Mexico in the US who have increased fivefold in 40 years. The omnipresence of bilingual signs across the country is yet another threat to American unity. It's hard to share  values with the neighbor who speaks a different language.

 The policy question is how do we promote the admission of immigrants to the country who are desirable in terms of skills or family affinity and are also inclined to accept American values? Certainly, we can expand the immigration interview process by demanding more than a pledge to support the U.S. Constitution. After all, during the 1950s when we were concerned about infiltrators from communist organizations or countries, we barred those whose background and conduct indicated hostility to America.