Why do some people claim that the U.S. is a "nation of immigrants?

Great Debates
1

A nation of immigrants would be a nation in which most of its people had immigrated into the country. This does not fit the United States. The vast majority of people who have ever been Americans have been born in this country.

And then some would argue that the meaning of a “nation of immigrants” is that all Americans have ancestors who immigrated here. Well,if thats the case, then all nations on Earth are “nations of immigrants”, since all nations are composed of people who’s ancestors immigrated to their countries.

So whats up with that phrase? Is it just something that ignorant people mouth? Is it just a phrase that certain groups use to justify this countries immigration policies?

2

Most of the populations in North and South America are young compared to most of the populations in the Europe, Asia, and Africa. So while all nations are composed of people whose ancestors immigrated there, it’s a more recent (on average) phenomena for nations in the “New World”.

In the U.S. specifically, you can add to this a (fairly) liberal immigration policy for a big chunk of its history. (I have no idea how the U.S. policy compares with others in the Americas, but the OP was asking (or ranting) about the U.S). This, combined with other factors such as size, allows for large sub-populations of people whose ancestry is from somewhere else in the world. In many cases, these sub-populations choose to self-identify with their ancestral groups, and so tend think of themselves as children or descendants of immigrants.

This doesn’t mean that the U.S. is unique in the ethnic diversity of its citizens, but there does seem to be more diversity than in many other nations, IMHO.

So while the “nation of immigrants” label certainly contains some (a lot of?) hyperbole, it’s not entirely without merit.

Ugly

3

Most Americans actually know where their immediate ancestors came from. They may speak the language, eat the food, and wear the clothing of their “homeland”. People are still asked where they are “from” if they don’t fit the stereotypical image of an American, even if they and their parents were born here. When this country reaches its 500th birthday, perhaps all of these things will have disappeared and the US will no longer be a “country of immigrants.”

4

Well, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and others, ending (pretty much) with the Normans settled what became the current country of England by the eleventh century, but the modern nation that makes up the largest region of Great Britain did not take a recognizanle shape (as we would know it) until the sixteenth century, or so–and the people who lived there before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. were never entirely displaced.

While the area known as France has had Huns, Goths, Vandals, and several other groups tramp over its countrysides in search of loot (and, occasionally, homes), the original Celtic/Gaulic peoples are probably still a significant source of population, there.

The same sort of analysis leads to the same sort of conclusions for most of Eurasia and Africa. There have, indeed, been massive migrations, but the ethnic groups who make up the current nation-states have been there for many hundreds of years. In contrast, the U.S. (along with Canada, Australia, Argentina, and several other countries) was largely (re-)populated by enormous influxes of immigrants in just the last 200 years. So, while the U.S. could not call itself the only nation of immigrants, it certainly can call itself a nation of immigrants.

5

TomnDebb, even the so aboriginal people of England immigrated there at some point too. Same with the so called “Native Americans”, they were also immigrants.

So are you one to believe that all nations are “nations of immigrants”?

6

The US is a nation where a very large proportion of the population, larger than that in many (?any?) other lands, descends from people who chose to come here (though we also have millions who had no choice!); and where a large portion of those can trace that act of their ancestor to a recorded event in relatively recent time. Knowing Great-grandma was processed thru Ellis Island in 1912 has a different effect on the mind than having a notion that your tribe has been in the Valley since 500AD.

7

Cat Patrol, you seem to be splitting hairs and picking nits.

Insert “recent” before “immigrants” in that problematic phrase of yours. Now does it make more sense?

8

Monstro, allow me to change tack, and present the question another way.

The United States is NOT a nation of immigrants!

Now prove me wrong.

9

Why should anyone attempt to prove wrong your misuse of the language? The phrase is clearly used in the context of events that have occurred within fairly recent history. The word immigrant, itself, does not really allow its use in terms of migrations across the Bering Straits.

The word immigrant means one who enters a country to live. There was no North American nation that the Asians “entered” to colonize the Americas. The country of England did not exist when the Angles, Jutes, Saxons, and others wandered into the land. The nation of France did not exist when the Huns, Goths, and Vandals committed there peregrinations.

On the other hand, the U.S. had been a nation for 54 years before the first large wave of Irish happened to come over. And the huge bulk of people of Italian, Polish, Chinese, and other cultures who came to the U.S. came to a country that was already established with a government, laws, and a fledgling culture.

The same is true for the immigrants to the countries of Canada, Australia, Argentina, and others.

I’m not sure why this bothers you or why you want to make an issue of it, but attempting to change the meanings of words simply to make a debating point is an unfortunate way to get laughed at.

10

sigh

I live in northern NJ, a place where it seems like every other person you meet speaks with a foreign accent. I live in a high rise containing a Russian-oriented shul in the basement, with Spanish and Caribbean food flavors wafting through the hallways. As a monolingual, native-born American, I am a real minority where I live.

Like I said earlier, you seem to be arguing over semantics rather than something substantive. I asked you a question earlier and I have another: Is the US more of a “nation of immigrants” than Russia? Japan? Kenya? Poland? If you don’t think so, why do you think people coined the term in the first place? If you think so in these particular cases, then might it seem like the US is more of a “nation of immigrants” than most countries?

11

Tom, it seems that you are the one who wants to misuse the language.

"Immigrant"means a person who comes to a different country or region to stay as you have just said. Since the vast majority of Americans have been born here, and are therefore not immigrants, why do you insist that we are a nation of immigrants?

12

If you buy into the panspermia hypothesis, then life itself is an immigrant to the planet.

Oh, and re this:

The, uh, burden of proof don’t work like that, babe.

13

Because most people insist on recognizing their immigrant heritage, even if it’s just nominally.

14

How about a nation of illegal aliens? :rolleyes:

15

If you are going to play that game, Big Boy, you are going to have to define your terms. For instance:

My progenitors came to Pennsylvania in 1683. Am I the decedent of immigrants?

Others of my progenitors came to Wisconsin from Europe in 1869. Am I the decedent of immigrants?

Others of my progenitors came to Canada from Scotland in the mid 1700s. Am I the descendant of Immigrants?

Others of my progenitors were Huron Indians in Canada. Am I the decedent of immigrants?

My sister-in-law’s parents came to Iowa in 1948 by way of Poland, Birchen-Beltzen concentration camp and the displaced persons camps. Are my niece and nephew the decedents of immigrants?

My next door neighbor’s grand parents spoke Norwegian as their first language. Is my neighbor the decedent of immigrants?

My cousin’s paternal great-grandparents fled the Irish Potato Famine to Boston in 1850. Are my cousins the decedents of immigrants?

My friend’s grandmother speaks only Greek and he attends an orthodox church. Is my friend the decedent of immigrants?

When my people were in Germany, or Switzerland or Scotland or in the woods of the Saint Lawrence Valley they were with people who shared a common ancestral memory, culture, food, language, religious faith and tradition. The same is true of my sister-in-law’s people, my cousins, my neighbor’s and my friend’s. Surely you will accept that the first of those families who set foot in North America were immigrants? How many generations have to pass before that ancestral memory no longer counts in figuring out whether or not I am of immigrant stock? Is it your view that only the generation born elsewhere and residing here counts as immigrant?

The fact remains, no matter what semantic games you see fit to play, Sport, any of us that claim European, African, Asian ancestors rose from people who came to North America as strangers and for the most part under distressed circumstances. To claim otherwise denies your family and the hardships they suffered so that you could deny their existence.

We have been through this before. There was a political party whose motto was “I know nothing.” It’s all been done before, Sport, you can try it again if you wish. May I ask, however, what difference it makes?

16

We all know the definition of “immigrant”. The vast majority of Americans, dead and alive, don’t fit that catagory.

17

Um, no, this isn’t how it works.

YOU make a statement. Thus, it is YOUR job to prove it. It is NOT up to us to prove you wrong. YOU are responsible to provide back up for any claim you make. At least, that’s how it works around here.

sigh

However, I think the reason we consider ourselves a nation of immigrants is about relativity. Compared to other nations, we are fairly new, and it wasn’t so long ago that we WERE a nation made up of immigrants. Also, it was mainly those immigrants and their children who were around when we really became number one.

Some generations from now, we probably won’t be what you would call a nation of immigrants. Now, however…

18

Granted, most people here now are not people born in other lands, but go back a generation or two and you’ll find immigrants in most people’s family trees. Immigrants flood to this country because it is the greatest country on Earth, and to make abetter life. Too many people’s family histories involve someone dreaming to sail off to this mystical land “America” where the streets are paved with gold, for us to simply deny the fact because we happened to be born here.

19

Hello Guin.

Speaking of backing up our claims, you just stated that “not long ago, we were a nation of immigrants”.

Please back up your claim as to when the majority of citizens in the US were immigrants. Please. Thank you.

20

The development of railroads assisted in distributing newbies across the continent. Unfortunately, there were occasional train wrecks.