The Foreign Service Journal, October 2004

our country precisely because they embrace our values. Even those who may claim they are coming for purely eco- nomic motives, more often than not, end up staying because without our values, those monetary incentives simply would not exist. 3. Along the same lines, Huntington seems to believe that the values the new immigrants bring are not good. Yet he doesn’t even examine what they are! When I asked a class of university students here in Mexico to list their val- ues, they identified family, culture, music, history, color. Others commonly associated with Mexico might include strong religious faith, courtesy and hospitality, hard work and entrepreneurialism. Which of these values are objec- tionable? Which of these are not compatible with what we want for our country? 4. Huntington doubts the ability of our country to adapt and change and to take advantage of any change that comes our way. But why can we not do as we have always done, and absorb these values into our own core set? Make them ours; make ours better. I am forever amazed when I return home at the speed of change. From the shelves in stores to reno- vations along city streets, change and improvement are part of our nature. Americans do not stand still, but move on, adapting, absorbing and taking advantage of innovations to make life better. 5. One of the changes Huntington seems to be most wor- ried about is the “invasion” of our country by the Spanish lan- guage, which he treats as a new phenomenon despite its long history within our borders. He identifies regional concentra- tions where Spanish is predominantly spoken, and implies that those Americans who speak only English justifiably feel threatened by hearing a different language in their midst. Perhaps that is true to some degree. But as for me, I would feel threatened by only knowing one language, not by hear- ing others spoken around me — particularly as the global economy becomes ever more closely knit together and we can no longer take our competitiveness for granted. As a nation, Americans have always been among the worst language learners, because we saw little need. That may have been true for most of our history, but no longer. Thus, we ought to see language acquisition as an opportunity . Even if we don’t value the ability to learn other languages for its own sake, there is considerable economic benefit in it. 6. Huntington worries that these new immigrants hold more allegiance to their country of birth than to ours. But he overlooks the fierce pride these new immigrants have in their new country as well, extending to doing things for their new country which were completely frowned on in their old country. Mexico, for example, has a long history and deeply- rooted belief that countries should not intervene in the affairs of other countries. Yet how many soldiers in Iraq are Mexican immigrants? Quite a few. Last year, Mexican news- papers reprinted letters from Mexican-Americans who said they want to go fight for their new country, which has given them everything they have. Mexicans were stunned; Mexican-Americans were not. 7. His case that the current wave of immigrants is differ- ent from preceding influxes is empirically weak. The crux of his argument seems to be that because so many of the cur- rent immigrants have entered illegally, that so many are from one country (Mexico), and that so many are from a neigh- boring country, the majority of them are going to enclaves from which they are unlikely to emerge. But he offers little substantiation for such sweeping assertions, which fly in the face of our national experience. Students of immigration know the histories of the many ethnic enclaves in New York, Chicago and elsewhere — such as the Polish, Irish, Italian and Chinese, to name some of the main ones during the 19th and early-20th centuries. True, their tendency to settle among their compatriots initially fos- tered the development of gangs and ghettos (in part because of the hostility and bigotry they faced), but before long, they and their children were becoming integrated into American society and contributing richly to their new homeland. There is little reason to think the newest arrivals will behave any differently. 8. Huntington mistakes Mexicans’ pride in their roots and heritage as contempt for their new country. He even goes so far as to call this a sign that Mexicans define themselves “in terms of culture and creed” as opposed to our distinct Anglo- American values. I disagree. This is part of being American; finding our roots, displaying the signs and symbols in our homes, but doing so side-by-side with our pride in our coun- try. I am married to a third-generation Irish-American. I worked most recently for an ambassador who is a third-gen- erationMexican-American. Both are proud of their heritage, and both are fiercely loyal to our country. There is a big dif- ference between cheering for a team at a soccer match and making a genuine contribution to our new country, such as joining our armed forces. 9. Strangely, Huntington writes as if the Spanish- speaking migrants in the U.S. were a homogeneous group, and the millions of Mexican migrants were monolithic in their views and attitudes. In fact, Spanish-speakers in the U.S. distinguish between Cubans and Peruvians and Mexicans, and the Mexicans themselves are divided accord- ing to their regions of origin. In New York or in Los Angeles, you can find clubs and associations representing those from the state of Zacatecas or Puebla, or even from single hometowns. This is further manifested in the fact that many of the most recent migrants are not even moving to traditional or historic destinations. They are increasingly going to states where there are few other migrants at all — e.g., North Carolina, Ohio, North Dakota, Utah — belying O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 65