Could an American President say this today?

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of the greatest ever said it last century.  He would be skewered if he said it today.  Our leaders today don't speak anymore, they talk in soundbyte tongues and PC particulars. 



I think he was right then and right now.  I'm all for LEGAL immigration and welcome good, law abiding people to this country.  I think this country simply asks that you obey it's laws, work hard and assimulate...at least that's what we used to ask.


The President I quote below is enshrined on a large "rock" in South Dakota.   
---------------


... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

Americanization

The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?

One America

All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind.

[77ncaachamps]

I agree with the legal naturalization. But the drive for high profits and cheaper labor means - for many companies who are tied to the US - the use of illegal immigrants.

But understand the context of his (Teddy Roosevelt) speech:

The term "hyphenated" was in slang use by 1893, and was common as a derogatory term by 1904. During World War I the issue arose of the primary political loyalty of ethnic groups with close ties to Europe, especially German Americans and also Irish Americans. Former President Theodore Roosevelt insisted to an Irish Catholic audience in 1915, "...The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

So, I think Roosevelt would draw fire surely, but again calling him into the context of the current world, though straight-shooting he is, I do not think TR would be elected President.

Interesting connection with Iraq...

The Democrats had attacked the Republicans McKinley and Roosevelt on the grounds that they were using force to impose American society on non-Anglo-Saxon peoples in the Philippines and in China. Roosevelt thought this was absurd. Roosevelt pointed out that the United States had been doing this for generations. This is exactly what we had done with the Indians and he hadn't known too many Democrats and Republicans who really objected to this. And, as he said at one point, "If we are going to return the Philippines back to the Filipinos, then we should turn Arizona back to the Apaches."

Return Iraq to the Iraqis? Not if TR was president.

But we must place TR in context again. Before I dare say he was a racist, much of slant in America was from an Anglo perspective. Heck, the Philippines was a country long before the US was and even had higher institutions of learning before the US, but Filipinos (I am a Filipino-American) were deemed uncivilized.

I'll let good ol' Teddy's words speak loudly:

(in reference to the Philippine Insurrection, post Spanish-American War and during the American occupation of the Philippines)

One of his first proclamations was that the Filipinos "must be made to realize...that we are the masters." He referred to Filipinos as "Chinese half-breeds," "savages, barbarians, wild and ignorant people."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, TR made some of those comments in a time when that was the general feeling.

Here's the bigger point, and I think he is dead on right.  Legal immigration and the processes that are required to achieve that are inheritently good for this country.  People wait years, learn about the country, take English, etc.  They want to come here and to be citizens.  We welcome them with open arms.

The key is the desire to be American.  Not fractional mini-nations within.  Are we heading in that direction in some parts of the country?

[77ncaachamps]

Yes, TR made some of those comments in a time when that was the general feeling.

Here's the bigger point, and I think he is dead on right.  Legal immigration and the processes that are required to achieve that are inheritently good for this country.  People wait years, learn about the country, take English, etc.  They want to come here and to be citizens.  We welcome them with open arms.

The key is the desire to be American.  Not fractional mini-nations within.  Are we heading in that direction in some parts of the country?

I agree with the wait time. Unfortunately, money is the driving factor. The need for labor - cheap labor - has created a "marketplace" for illegal immigrants.

I live in CA and see the numbers of Hispanics increasing. Does that trouble me? Not a bit. Does the number of illegal immigrants (Hispanic or other) trouble me? Sure.

But if people are willing to pay them because they'll do it for cheap, they (presumably Americans) are aiding and abetting this national crisis. Look at the farms and factories all over the nation.

This goes way back in Milwaukee if we're talking about Hispanics..."in the 1920s Mexican immigrants started coming to Milwaukee in sizable numbers for jobs in tanneries, railroads and factories...The tanneries recruited workers from Mexico, in some cases to dilute the unions and in some cases as strike breakers. Some industries with hard, less desirable jobs provided free rail passage for young men from Mexican and U.S. border towns. Then-south side tannery Pfister & Vogel was one of the larger firms that made a lot of hires. Workers settled nearby, which is why the near south side developed as a Latino stronghold."

Becoming an American citizen has it's process. We need to honor it.

But if companies and people wave the dollar saying, "Will you do this for a couple of bucks?" then they are part of the problem.

However, this presents some quandries: Do you kick out all of the illegals caught working here? Businesses would slow, prices would increase, and the economy would be affected. Do you expedite naturalization so as not to affect businesses? Then you disrespect the process.

On a side note, I get upset with the teenagers who flaunt the goods but don't do any work and other Americans who don't work an honest living and suck up and do the dirty work.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have no problem with Hispanics in California either...hell my girfriend for nearly 5 years (this is year's ago) was Hispanic.  Wonderful people.  Where I live is largely Asian and Hispanic and many of my kids friends come from those backgrounds.  We have a great time with the families, etc.  The irony is, when immigration reform does come up amongst those families, many are worried about some of the movements afoot with La Raza, etc.  Of course most of the families are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans so that may make a difference.

I understand the cheap labor argument you are making and agree wholeheartedly that people are aiding and abetting....I guess that's why I'm the ONLY guy on my street that mows his own lawn, does his own tree trimming, etc.  Seriously, it's become sort of the neighborhood joke and I get probably 10 business cards a week on my porch for dirt cheap landscaping services to do it for me....I refuse mostly on the grounds that I need the exercise and want it done my way.

I'm one that doesn't advocate deporting illegals.  My problem with it is in 1986 we had what was then called a "FINAL AMNESTY" and the borders would be enforced.  Well, that didn't happen.  Here we are in 2007 and the flow is as massive as ever.  Tremendous strain on social services, crime, the environment, security, etc.

We have laws on the books to stop or certainly contain to a trickle the flow of illegal immigration but we don't do it. 

Enforce the laws we have, is that such a criminal thing to ask as a taxpaying American citizen?  I don't think so.

[mu03eng]

I don't understand why it is so difficult to just get the borders closed first.  Lets deal with the current illegals after that.  Basically lets ignore the elephant in the room but put a fence around it so it can't get any bigger. 

That leaves the cheap labor in place for now.  Then you work on streamlining the legal process.  I'm willing to bet 99% of the country is for legal immigration, I don't think this is a case like with the No Knowing Party in the 1840s and 1850s where their whole platform was around keeping the Germans and Irish out.

In the end I think it is truly just politics.  Neither side wants to deal with the "fence" issue by itself because if they do deal with that they lose leverage on the elephant issues.  For example Democrats are saying we want a fence but not until you give us amnesty on all illegals.  Republicans are saying we want a fence but not until we talk about a plan to punish or remove illegals.  As a consequence the fence doesn't get done and the elephant gets bigger.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Mu03eng....couldn't agree more.  It's not that hard, but there is no will to close them off.  Politics galore.  Worried about upsetting potential voting bloc here at home, worried about business reaction to labor shortages, etc.

[harryp]

I don't argue with anyone (except my wife), and without question T Roosevelt was among our greatest and most eloquent presidents.  But living 20 miles from the Mexican border I want to weigh in.  TR's comments must be considered in context.  He was courting public approval by sort of playing both sides in the "race suicide" debate at the time. 
Remember, from about 1790 to 1925, you had to be a "free white person" to become a citizen (exception for ex slaves). All asians and persons from the middle east were not "white".  (See US v Schwind regarding a memeber of the Brahman class from India.)  The debate was mostly centered around eastern europeans who many believed were not members of the white race, and who were arriving in great numbers from about 1895 until 1920.  Madison Grant's ideas were immensley popular in this country after WWI.
So, Roosevelt was essentially arguing for the "melting pot" idea in which "good white stock" should outbreed the new immigrants.
It was correct then as today that many business wanted and needed cheap labor from immigrants.  I'm sure you've read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
It was really a much different climate in some ways, and similar in others, but the issue is complex.

[77ncaachamps]

Mu03eng....couldn't agree more.  It's not that hard, but there is no will to close them off.  Politics galore.  Worried about upsetting potential voting bloc here at home, worried about business reaction to labor shortages, etc.

It's going to take some savvy and word-play to eventually get it done. The common citizen doesn't read the bills that are in the Legislature nor know the nuances; they leave it up to the news reporters (and others) to interpret them and provide feedback.

By saying "building a fence" it implies keeping out unwanted people. A bit degrading, but in fact, it is what it is - not letting illegal immigrants in. Plus, no one wants a "physical border".

It's going to take some massaging and I'm sure you're hear words like: "restrictions", "limitations", "strictness", etc. Stuff we've been hearing for a long time in CA, but words that are nonetheless much more soothing for the common person.

In the long run, it's going to take at least two generations to start to see almost complete assimilation into the American population of the current immigrants. By that time, especially in the South, Southwest and West, there will be more Hispanic politicians who will have to deal with this touchy issue with people of their own ethnicity. It's going to be interesting.