It’s a testament to our arguably valid cynicism about national politics that so many core American axioms have become occasion to roll our eyes. It’s torture to hear politicians use the rhetoric of “the city on a hill,” “the land of opportunity” and “the nation of immigrants,” not because these creeds are false—they’re not—but because the cynicism that goes into employing them is so disheartening, especially given the actions of those speaking. Presidential candidates who are now attempting to invoke that last principle are engaging in glaring appropriation.
The idea that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants is particularly significant. It’s a reminder that the upshot of being a “land of opportunity” is that we are what we are. It nods to the fact that not every family on the block landed at Plymouth Rock and that America is composed of people with different degrees of understanding of what exactly it means to be American.
So, what happened?
Last week, President Obama announced that the U.S. would be taking in around 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement in the next fiscal year. Since the Syrian Civil War began in 2011, forcing countless citizens to abandon their homes, the U.S. has welcomed less than 1,500 of them. This comes on the heels of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pledge to accept 800,000 in the coming months. The country’s vice-chancellor also predicted that it could welcome around 500,000 more per year in the next few years. Germany has a population of about 81 million; the U.S. has about 320 million citizens.
Part of what gives rhetoric the stench of falsehood is emptiness. If we are truly a nation of immigrants, and if the Statue of Liberty’s exhortation about the tired and hungry is to be believed, we need to act accordingly. Jordan, a country of 6.4 million, has reportedly taken in over one million Syrian refugees. Jordan has a GDP of about $31 billion; the U.S. boasts an $18 trillion figure.
The road to refugee status and resettlement in the U.S. is more difficult than it is in other countries because of rigorous background checks. If someone has ever had any connection to a suspected terrorist, their odds of resettling in this country are next to zero. And, given the murkiness of who our government is really backing in Syria, most refugees will have an extremely difficult time passing muster. The general conceit, of course, is that this process targets extremists. But, if the last 15 years have shown us anything, it’s that allowing people to grow bitter and to languish in underfunded camps creates those extremists.
Quoted in “Martin O’Malley Is Right: America Should Be Taking More Syrian Refugees,” an article in The Atlantic by James Fallows, Dr. Ramy Arnaout perhaps puts it best: “Do we want to trust the future of the world we used to lead to the mercy, generosity and tolerance of the Saudis? Are we content to play second fiddle to the Germans and Greeks? Or can we begin to salvage our tattered reputation and sense of self by demonstrating some basic human kindness?”
Calling our country a nation of immigrants has certain requirements. The standard to which we hold ourselves should be, by necessity, world-class. It is not, and that needs to change.
Bernstein is a member of the class of 2018.
