The New Americans

Recent Immigration and American Society

Edited by
Steven J. Gold and Rubn G. Rumbaut














A Series from LFB Scholarly

!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0





Hispanic Immigrant Identity
Political Allegiance vs. Cultural Preference






George I. Monsivais















LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
New York 2004
Copyright 2004 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Monsivais, George I., 1956-
Hispanic immigrant identity : political allegiance vs. cultural
preference / George I. Monsivais.
p. cm. -- (The new Americans)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-59332-065-5 (alk. paper)
1. Hispanic Americans--Ethnic identity. 2. Immigrants--United
States--Social conditions. 3. Hispanic Americans--Politics and
government. 4. Immigrants--United States--Political activity. 5.
Allegiance--United States. 6. National characteristics, American.
I. Title. II. Series: New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)
E184.S75M654 2004
305.868'073--dc22
2004016950
ISBN 1-59332-065-5
Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper.
Manufactured in the United States of America.







To my Family
To my Friends
To my Homeland
To my People
To my God
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0
vii
Table of Contents









Introduction............................................................................................ 1

What is an American?.......................................................................... 13

Logistic Analysis of the Allegiance Variable ...................................... 81

Talking to the People: The Focus Groups.......................................... 103

Conclusions........................................................................................ 129

Footnotes............................................................................................ 137

Bibliography ...................................................................................... 147

Index .................................................................................................. 157
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0

ix

FOREWORD






In 1995, while conducting focus group with Hispanic immigrants, I
uncovered a paradox between the social/political behavior and the national
self-identification of many of participants. Some participants expressed
strong desires to live in the United States and be involved in their local
communities, however, they self-identified with their countries of origin
and had no intentions of becoming "American." The National Latino
Immigrant Survey as reported in New Americans by Choice (Pachon and
DeSipio, 1994) had similar findings with nearly half (49.5%) of the
participants (all legal residents) self-identifying with their countries of
origin.
One question raised by these findings was whether Hispanic
immigrants self-identifying with their countries of origin were expressing
political allegiance or merely expressing cultural preference. Prior
experience with this population suggested that in all likelihood, they were
not making declarative political statements, but rather only expressing
cultural preference. If this were the case, one would expect that criteria
defining what it is to be an American would not adequately predict
whether a respondent would self-identify as an American or with their
country of origin.
The research described in this book used a three-step approach to
examine this question. First, some minimum criteria of being American
were developed through an examination of relevant historical and current
literature and Supreme Court decisions. Next, a secondary analysis of the
NLIS data examined the relationship between the developed criteria and
the NLIS respondents national self-identification. Lastly, focus group
interviews were conducted with legal Hispanic immigrants exploring what
they meant when they self-identified as Americans or with their countries
of origin.
x Foreword


The literature review developed four points as a minimum
criteria defining being American: 1) belief in the American system of
government, 2) participation in voluntary organizations, 3) participation in
the political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient to be able
to participate in the political process. The secondary analysis of the NLIS
data revealed that when operationalized through variables in the NLIS,
most of the criteria did not predict national self-identification among
NLIS respondents. The focus groups results showed that overall, when
participants identified themselves as American or with their countries of
origin; they were expressing ethnic/racial or cultural concepts, and not
political preferences.

xi


Acknowledgements

Most worth while human endeavors are not accomplished alone. If this
particular endeavor is worthwhile at all, it is due in great part to the
bounteous assistance and support received from so many individuals. I
will here express appreciation to those who guided me through the this
work: Dr. Harry Pachon, Dr. Gary Segura, Dr. Jean Schroedel, and Dr.
Douglas Hooper.

!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction










In January of 1995, while conducting group interviews in Miami, Florida,
with immigrants from Central America, South America, and Cuba, I
discovered modest evidence of an apparent paradox between the
social/political behavior and the expressed national allegiance of some of
the participants. Although the principal focus of the group interviews was
not to discuss politics or political behavior, part of the interviews revolved
around:
how the individuals had come to the United States,
how long they had been in the United States,
their general attitudes about living in the United States, and
their general attitudes about interacting with the resident
Anglo population.
It was in this setting, that I observed an apparent paradox in that
although some of the participants in the groups:
had legally immigrated to the U.S.,
Were very appreciative of being in the U.S.,
2 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


continued in the U.S. as legal residents, or had obtained U.S.
citizenship,
considered living conditions in the U.S. better than living
condition in their countries of origin,
expressed a desire to be part of and improve their local
communities, and
expressed a desire to participate in or related a history of
having participated politically in the U.S.,
nevertheless they self-identified with their countries of origin and did
not view themselves as, nor had any intentions of becoming, in their
words, "American."
1

Several months later, I conducted additional interviews in the
Houston, Texas, area. The participants in these groups were principally
immigrants from Mexico and Central America with a few individuals of
Mexican heritage born in the U.S. As in Miami, many of the participants
were legal immigrants who were either residing in the U.S. legally, or who
had obtained U.S. citizenship. During the course of these interviews,
respondents expressed attitudes similar to those observed in Miami, and as
in Miami, some of the individuals in the Houston interview groups self-
identified with their countries of origin and noted they did not consider
themselves American.
These group interview participants in Miami and Houston presented
the following apparent paradoxical situation. They:
were individuals who legally immigrated to the United States,
were thankful to be in the United States,
maintained legal residency or had obtained U.S. citizenship,
participated in community affairs, but
Introduction 3




nevertheless continued to self-identify with their countries of
origin rather than with the United States.
Although group interview participants in both Miami and Houston
had manifested the same paradox, participants for these group interviews
had not been drawn from, and therefore possibly did not represent the
general Hispanic population. Therefore, although some of the participants
in these groups had served as an excellent initial example of the paradox
in question, unless this paradox was seen manifest in a broader more
representative sample of Hispanic immigrants, these initial observations
might merely be as curious anomalies.
A brief search revealed that this paradox did in fact exist in a very
broad and representative sample of Hispanic immigrants: the National
Latino Immigrant Survey (NLIS) conducted in 1988 and reported in New
Americans by Choice (Pachon and DeSipio, 1994). Participants in this
study were 1) all legal Hispanic immigrants, who 2) had been in the
United States for five or more years. Respondent to the NLIS were asked:
Which of the following best describes how you see yourself:
More as an American,
More as a member of your home country, or
As something else?
The results of the unweighted sample were as follows:
More as an American 42.6%
More as a member of your home country 49.5%
As something else 7.9%

Using the weighting scheme developed by the authors yielded the
following results:
More as an American 38%
More as a member of your home country 54%
As something else 8%
By either measure, approximately half of the respondents to the NLIS
appear to manifest at least some of the same paradoxical behavior
observed in the Miami and Houston interviews, namely they are legal
4 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


immigrants to the U.S., expressing a form of desire to reside in the U.S. by
having been here for at least five years, performing the affirmative action
of fulfilling the requirements to maintain legal residence or even obtain
citizenship, but nevertheless self-identifying with their countries of origin
rather than with the United States.

Why This Is an Issue of Importance
Why should this apparent paradox be explored and better understood? As
of the 2000 Census, Hispanics constitute the largest minority group in the
United States.
2
According to estimates released by the Census Bureau
published in September 2003, Hispanics comprise over 34% of the
population in the two most populous states, California and Texas, and
over 13% of the population in the next three most populous states, New
York (16%), Florida (18%), and Illinois (13%).
3
New Mexico boasts the
highest percent Hispanic population (43%). Although certainly not all of
the Hispanics in these states are immigrants, Hispanic immigrants do
comprise the largest proportion of immigrants into the United States in
recent years.
4
Census Bureau estimates in 2002 were that Latin
Americans were 52% of all foreign-born residents in the U.S.
5
All these
figures point to the fact that the population involved in this paradox, the
population of interest, continues to grow.
While this immigrant population continues to grow at a rapid pace,
anti-immigrant sentiment, as expressed in public opinion polls,
legislative initiatives and media reports, reached a post-World War II peak
in the mid-1990's (Muller 1997, 105). The terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 roused additional anti-immigrant feelings.
6

Leo R. Chavez notes that a principal concern regarding new
immigrants is their non-assimilation into American culture.
The new immigrants are transnationalists [emphasis in
original], or people who maintain social linkages back
in the home country; they are not bound by national
borders and their multiple identities are situated in
communities that cross nations. Transnational migrants
threaten a singular vision of the nation because they
Introduction 5




allegedly bring multiculturalism and not assimilation.
(Chavez 1997, 62)
The results reported above from respondents to the NLIS could be
interpreted as evidence that many legal Hispanic immigrants are
transnationals. If this is the case, and one further assumes that
transnationals do in fact threaten the nation by encouraging
multiculturalism rather than assimilation, then one might conclude that a
threat is posed to the singular vision of the nation by legal Hispanic
immigrants.
The growth of the population of interest in combination with
continuing anti-immigrant feelings by large segments of the population
make the examination of this apparent paradox particularly salient at this
time. That these current feelings are merely the latest manifestation of
anti-immigrant feelings dating back to before the Revolutionary War
7

does not make the issues or this apparent paradox any less interesting, but
rather it demonstrates the enduring nature of the issue, and the historic and
continuing concern regarding the impact of immigrants on the United
States.
8


Research Question and Hypothesis
The paradox noted above could be restated as follows:
Some Hispanic immigrants who manifest social and
political behavior which would lead one to believe they
would self-identify themselves as American, in fact
self-identify with their countries of origin.
The apparent mismatch between the behavior of these immigrants and
their stated self-identification with their countries of origin is caused by
two factors. First, because their behaviors to some degree appear to typify
American values (obedience to the law, appreciation for the life in
America, civic participation, etc.), and second, the assumption that their
statements of self-identification with their countries of origin are
somehow political in nature.
6 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


But what if their statements were not political in nature, but rather
statements of cultural preference? This would resolve the apparent
paradox. In fact, there is reason to believe that a cultural rather than a
political statement is what some of the participants in the focus groups
intended.
In the focus group interviews where the apparent paradox was
initially observed, the respondents were expressing self-identification with
their countries of origin using phrases such as, "Yo soy Cubano," or
"Chileno" or "Colombiano" to express this identity. The fact that they
identified themselves as "Cubano," "Chileno," or "Colombiano" rather
than as "Hispano" or "Latino" indicated a connection to their country of
origin, not just to a broad Hispanic or Latino cultural heritage.
9
On first
hearing such comments, most observers might conclude that the
respondents were stating expressions of national allegiance, with its
associated political connotations. However, it must be remembered that
the context of these focus groups dealt with cultural issues. This broader
context to the statements raises the question as to whether the expressions
were truly affirmations of political identification or whether they were
expressions of cultural preference.
The confusion of what was intended by these statements is illustrated
by the additional observation of how some parents among the focus group
respondents described being American. More than one parent respondent
expressed concern about their children becoming Americanized which
they defined as watching lots of television, playing video games all day,
and being disrespectful to parents and other adults. As they described it,
having their children remain Mexican (Cubano, Chileno, or
Colombiano) meant maintaining the old country values of respect,
family togetherness, and hard work.
Thus, in these cases, although the statements of national identity
made by these parent respondents initially appeared to be political, the
additional context they provided in their statements show the statements to
be expressions of cultural preference.
Introduction 7




These and other observations led to this hypothesis:
There is no relationship between a legal Hispanic
immigrants belief in and adherence to criteria which
we consider to be defining of what it means to be
American and that immigrants self-identification
with the U.S. or their country of origin.
If this is true, we should expect to find that when placed in a
statistical model the attributes which we consider as defining what it
means to be an American do not predict an immigrants self-identification
with the U.S. or with their country of origin. Further, we would expect
that if respondents were given the opportunity to explain their choice of
identifying with their countries of origin rather than with the U.S., they
would express their selection more in terms of social or cultural factors
than in expressions of political allegiances.
Approach
The research described in this book tested this hypothesis using a three-
step approach. First, a minimum criteria was developed describing what it
means to be an American. This was done through an examination of
relevant literature and United States Supreme Court cases. Next, a
secondary analysis of the NLIS data was conducted to examine the
relationship between the developed minimum criteria and the NLIS
respondents national self-identification (American or country of origin).
Lastly, focus group interviews were conducted to explore more deeply
with groups of legal Hispanic immigrants what they mean when they
identify themselves as Americans or with their countries of origin. Each
of these approaches will now be discussed in greater detail.
Developing Minimum Criteria of What it Means to Be an American
As described above, people seem to have a concept, although often
unarticulated, of what it means to be American. Samuel P. Huntington, in
his book American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony observed that:
People have been attempting to define American
national identity or national character ever since
national consciousness first emerged in the eighteenth
8 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


century. Personality traits, social characteristics,
geographic and environmental features, behavioral
patterns, and historical experiences have all been
invoked by one analyst or another. (Huntington 1981,
13)
To develop an absolute definition of an American creed or the
American national identity is beyond the scope of this examination. The
objective here is only to identify criteria which will represent a minimum
threshold of what it means to be an American. If at this minimum
threshold differences can be observed between those who identify
themselves as Americans and those who identify with their countries of
origin, then it would be reasonably inferred that those differences would
exist under more stringent criteria.
A list of core duties, values, beliefs, or behaviors which constitute the
minimum threshold of being an American will be developed by examining
historical and current attitudes toward immigrants as found in historical
writings, current popular commentaries, and the relevant academic
literature. Further, Supreme Court decisions addressing who qualifies for
full participation and legal acknowledgment as an American will be
used to demonstrate the changes in legal opinions over time as to who
qualifies as an American, and ultimately what criteria are now legally
unacceptable for disqualifying someone from receiving full legal
consideration as an American. Criteria determined by the Court to be
legally unacceptable would similarly be unacceptable for a minimum
threshold of what it means to be American. Therefore, examining the
criteria the Court has deemed as unacceptable and eliminating those
criteria from consideration will assist in creating this minimum threshold
definition.
Quantitative Analysis of the NLIS Data
Once minimum threshold criteria for a definition of what it means to be an
American have been developed, variables will be selected from the NLIS
to operationalize those criteria. Because the NLIS was not specifically
designed to examine the issue of national self-identification, only a subset
of variables from the NLIS will be selected to operationalize the criteria.
Introduction 9




Where possible, a set of variables from the NLIS will be combined
into a summary scale in order to create a single indicator variable for a
criterion. For example, if political participation were defined as one of the
minimum criteria defining what it mean to be an American, the several
variables in the NLIS dealing with political participation would be
combined into a summary scale to provide a single value of political
participation for each respondent. Appropriate statistical measures (e.g.
scale reliability and factor analysis) will be used to ensure that the
combination of the different variables into a summary scale is appropriate.
After the NLIS variables are selected, and the summary variables are
constructed, those variables, along with appropriate control variables (age,
sex, income, etc.), will be used in a logistic regression model to examine
the predictive ability of the criteria developed through the literature
review in predicting whether NLIS respondents would identify themselves
as American or with their countries of origin. Logistic regression is an
appropriate statistical method to use in this case because the variable
being examined, national self-identification, will be treated as a
dichotomous variable: those who identify themselves as Americans and
those who identify with their countries of origin.
If the minimum criteria model used in the logistic regression has a
strong predictive ability, this it would indicate that those individuals who
identify with the U.S. fit the criteria of being American better than those
who identify with their countries of origin. Or, conversely stated, those
who identify with their countries of origin, do not fit the criteria of being
American as well as those who identify with the U.S. If, however, the
logistic regression model is not a good predictor of identification with the
U.S. or country of origin, then we would conclude that adherence to the
characteristics of being American, as defined by the developed criteria, do
not predict whether an individual will identify with the U.S. or their
country of origin.
Additionally, these results will provide a groundwork of
understanding which will help in conducting the focus groups interviews.
For example, if the analysis were to find that political participation
variables are not predictive, but language variables are predictive, then it
might be suspected that the true underlying issue of national self-
10 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


identification is not strictly political, but may be cultural in nature. This
would alert the focus group facilitator to watch for or pursue indications
of this possibility in the comments made during the interviews.
Focus Group Interviews
Although a careful examination of the NLIS data may take us a long way
toward understanding the relationships between the criteria variables and
the dependent variable of national self-identification, focus group
interviews with Hispanic immigrants will provide further clarification of
the results obtained through the empirical analysis. As observed above,
the NLIS was not specifically designed to examine this issue of national
self-identification. Further, the nature of telephone interviews like those
conducted for the NLIS are generally such that the in-depth exploration of
issues is not possible. Therefore, focus group interviews will be used to
allow a group facilitator the opportunity to explore the feelings of the
focus group participants with regard to this issue, and it will allow the
participants the opportunity to more completely express their opinions.
Population to Be Studied
Because the purpose of the focus group interviews is to provide greater
depth to the quantitative analysis done on the NLIS data, the population
selected for the focus groups will mirror as much as possible the
population of the NLIS. The population to be invited to the focus group
interviews will be adult Hispanic immigrants, who have been legal
residents in the U.S. for five or more years, living in areas of high,
moderate, and low Hispanic concentration.
Approach/Methods Summary
The approach outlined above has the advantage of applying both
quantitative and qualitative analytic techniques to the research question.
The quantitative analysis of the NLIS data set will provide an examination
of a large-sample-population and a statistical measure of the relationships
between the criteria variables selected to represent being American and
the dependent variable of national self-identification. The qualitative
approach of the focus group interviews has as its strength the ability to
provide a deeper understanding of the feelings and opinions of the focus
group participants. Whereas the quantitative approach may allow us to
Introduction 11




see the relationships between, for example, civic participation and national
self-identification, the qualitative approach will allow us to ask directly
what they mean when they identify themselves as American or from their
country of origin. It will also allow the exploration of what the
respondents feel it means to be American.
The end result of using both quantitative and qualitative methods for
addressing the research question will be a more complete picture of the
differences in behaviors and attitudes of the respondents on both sides of
this question; those who identify with their countries of origin and those
who identify themselves as Americans.
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0

13
CHAPTER 2

What is an American










Overview
America is a country built though immigration. With settlers from
England, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and other
nations, arriving before the founding of the country, it is not surprising
that Will Kymlicka in Multicultural Citizenship describes America as the
original immigrant country (Kymlicka 1995, 61). Given the historical
continuity of immigration to the U.S., it is understandable that Alejandro
Portes and Rubn G. Rumbaut, in their work Immigrant America, would
refer to America as a permanently unfinished society, which has
become anew a nation of immigrants (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, xvii).
The impact of immigrants on the makeup of who is an American is noted
by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III in One Nation Indivisible. He observes that
for the first time more Americans are descended from the forty-eight
million who immigrated to the United States since 1790 than from those
who lived in the United States before 1790 (Wilkinson 1997, 3).
10
It is ironic that despite the historical importance and consistency of
immigration, Americans have typically viewed the newest wave of
immigrants with suspicion and concern. We are a nation of immigrants
whose citizens have a long history of not supporting immigration
(Kolasky, 1997, 1). Espenshade and Hempstead also write that even
though the United States is frequently referred to as a nation of
immigrants there have been persistent attempts by former immigrants to
14 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


keep out newcomers ever since the founding of the new colonies
(Espenshade and Hempstead 1996, 537). Lawrence Auster, writing in
Policy Review, expresses similar sentiments when he refers to current
immigration as a Third-World invasion of this country (Auster 1995,
88). He goes on to assert that this invasion is delegitimizing American
national identity and way of life (ibid.). This attitude toward immigrants
was evidenced in the results of a 1992 Harris study which asked Overall,
over our history do you think immigration has been good or bad for this
country? Thirty-four percent of those surveyed responded that they felt
immigration had been bad for the country (Louis Harris 1992).
11
In
March 2000, NBC News, Wall Street Journal survey had 51% of its
respondents indicating they felt the United States was too open to
immigrants.
12
Similarly, in response to a question on the General Social
Survey in 2000, 43% of the respondents felt that immigration levels
should be decreased.
13
In a Gallup poll conducted in September 2002,
roughly one year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 54% of the respondents
felt that immigration levels should be decreased.
14

A concern regarding immigration among some seem to echo Austers
concern expressed above. In the 2000 General Social Survey, 73% of the
respondents felt that more immigrants coming to this country would make,
it harder to keep the country united.
15

Are immigrants leaving behind their loyalties to their native
homelands and adopting America as their own? Are they becoming
Americans? As noted in the introductory chapter, the NLIS data
showed that legal Hispanic immigrants to the United States split almost
evenly on the question of national self-identification: half saying they
identify with America, and half identifying with their countries of origin.
Results such as these in the NLIS and the continuing influx of immigrants
lend support to those who have concerns that immigrants are changing
Americas national character, identity, and way of life.
But what does it mean to be American? As already mentioned
above, America has been built by immigrants, and throughout its history
each separate group of immigrants have added their distinct cultural flavor
to the American culture. Across the centuries of our existence as a nation,
the United States has adopted many customs, traits, holidays, foods, and
verbiage of various immigrant groups. We celebrate St. Patricks Day,
What is an American 15




Cinco de Mayo, and Oktoberfest. We send our children to kindergarten
(literally childrens garden in German), say gesundheit (the German
word for health) when someone sneezes, have our pie a la mode (French
meaning after the fashion), or criticize an individual for trying to be
macho (Spanish indicating masculine pride). We eat falafel, pizza, tacos,
and sushi (although hopefully not all at the same meal), drink Irish coffee,
and put salsa on bagels. Although it has not always happened
immediately or smoothly, it nevertheless is true that adoptions or
adaptations of many aspects of the varying cultures of immigrants have
occurred, and America has come to claim them, in some form or another,
as its own.
With so many influences from so many cultures, what is an
American? By what criteria can someone be measured to determine how
American they might be? If we could establish a set of minimum
criteria for being American, then we could return to the primary
question of this research: Can a minimum set of criteria of what it means
to be American predict whether an immigrant will identify with the U.S.
or with their country of origin?
Historically, the criteria used to judge whether an individual was
American appear to fall into two broad categories: 1) does the
individual fit the ethnic, racial, or cultural criteria requisite to be an
American, and 2) does the individual believe and practice the political
principles, obligations, beliefs, and behaviors that make Americans
American. Although historically, ethnic, racial, and cultural criteria have
been used as a standard of being American, increasingly these criteria are
being deemed inappropriate standards, as noted perhaps most importantly
in Supreme Court decisions and through legislative action.
The objective of this chapter is twofold; first, by citing primary
documents, academic discussion, and Supreme Court decisions, the
chapter will briefly trace the historical use and decline in use of ethnic,
racial, and cultural characteristics as criteria to determine who is an
American. Second, the chapter will turn to the development of minimum
criteria for defining who is an American based upon certain political
principles, obligations, beliefs, and behaviors.
16 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


The search for some criteria for determining who might be an
American should not be considered an onerous or invidious attack upon
immigrants. By legally coming to and abiding in the United States,
immigrants become part of the American social fabric and obtain the
benefits and privileges which come with residence in the United States.
The identification of a set of obligations, beliefs, and behaviors
immigrants might be expected to live up to in return for belonging to the
American social structure is in keeping with the political principle of
citizenship having both rights and obligations (Janowitz 1980, 1).
Although our populations of interest is all legal Hispanic immigrants and
not only those immigrants who have obtained citizenship, it is not
unreasonable to extend some of the obligations of citizenship to legal
residents as well. While legal residents do not enjoy all of the benefits of
citizenship, they do enjoy most of those benefits, and therefore it would
seem reasonable that they would also incur some of the obligations.
16
But,
in part because the population we are examining encompasses both
citizens and non-citizen legal residents, it makes even more sense to seek
to outline only a minimum threshold of what it means to be American,
rather than an absolute or ideal standard.
Ethnicity, Race, and Culture as Criteria for Being American
Although America was built by immigrants, and at its founding as a nation
the declaration was made that all men were created equal, Glazer contends
at every point in [American] history, the broadly inclusionary view can
be contrasted with a narrow racist and chauvinist view (Glazer 1996, 94).
It was this narrower view of who can be American that was being
expressed by Daniel Webster when he observed that America had been
established by the most earnest and resolute men of the most virile races
the world has ever developed (Brewer 1902, 15).
This firm belief that America was founded and populated by chosen
people, people from the most virile races, laid the groundwork for the
use of what Smith in Civic Ideals describes as ascriptive criteria; race,
ethnicity, gender and culture. As Smith notes:
It is . . . unsurprising that many Americans have been
attracted to ascriptive civic myths assuring them that,
regardless of their personal achievements or economic
What is an American 17




status, their inborn characteristics make them part of a
special community, the United States of America,
which

is thanks to some combination of nature, history, and
God, distinctively and permanently worthy. (Smith
1997, 38)
The use of the ascriptive characteristics of ethnicity, race, and culture
criteria in determining who qualified to be an American greatly limited the
pool of who was eligible to be acknowledged as American. The argument
was essentially:
America is a special place for a chosen people.
I, as an American, am one of the chosen, therefore,
Other chosen people must be similar to me.
We will now briefly review the use of these ascriptive criteria
throughout American history.
A Historical Review of Race and Ethnicity as Criteria for
Determining Who Is American
The use of ethnicity and race as criteria for determining who could be
considered an American has its foundation in attitudes and beliefs held
long before the official formation of the United States as a nation. As
noted by Horsman in Race and Manifest Destiny, as early as the
seventeenth century, the concept of Americans as a chosen people
permeated Puritan and then American thought (Horsman 1981, 3). It was
not at all unusual for a people to consider themselves chosen, but the
American people could point to empirical evidence of their being elect.
Gods intentions were first revealed in the survival and
prosperity of the tiny colonies, elaborated by the
miracle of a successful revolution against the might of
Great Britain, and confirmed by a growth that amazed
the world in the sixty years after that conflict. (Ibid.)
18 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


The use of ethnicity and race for defining who is an American is
illustrated by the comments of Benjamin Franklin who observed the
difference between resident, established Americans, and new immigrant
groups arriving on colonial shores. Franklin expressed his concerns that
German immigrants in Pennsylvania were too thick settled. Franklin
thought Pennsylvania ran the risk of becoming a Colony of Aliens
where the Germans would Germanize Americans instead of Americans
Anglifying them . . . (Carlson 1987, 26). Franklin, at this time,
championed the notion of colonial and then later national homogeneity.
The assumption that Americans were homogeneous was expressed by
John Jay in the Federalist Papers when he described Americans as:
. . . descended from the same ancestors, speaking the
same language, professing the same religion, attached
to the same principles of government, very similar in
their manners and customs. (Federalist Paper No. 2.
Rossiter 1961, 38)
Fuchs notes that colonial Pennsylvania clearly took race into account
in its settlement policies, welcoming only white European settlers on
terms of equal rights. This use of race as a primary criteria for
determining who could be an American was incorporated into the
immigration laws of the new nation as a whole. Despite the need for
labor, early immigration laws were nevertheless restrictive, showing
preference toward white European immigrants. (Fuchs 1990, 8).
The belief of America being founded by a chosen race justified such
restrictions and supported the contention that Americans were racially
superior. The belief in the superiority of some races over others was
clearly expressed in comments made by John Pinkerton in his work A
Dissertation on the Origin and Progress of the Scythians or Goths (1787).
He wrote:
A Tartar, a Negro, an American [Indian] etc. etc. differ
as much from a German, as a bull-dog, or lap-dog, or
shepherds cur, from a pointer . . . . The differences are
radical; and such as no climate or chance could
produce: and it may be expected that as science
advances, able writers will give us a complete system
of the many different races of men. (Horsman 1981,
31)
What is an American 19




Jefferson expressed similar feelings regarding the superiority of
Saxon heritage. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton written on August 13,
1776 Jefferson stated:
Has not every restitution of the antient [sic] Saxon laws
had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at
once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest
and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as
it stood before the 8th century? (Jefferson 1984, 752)
The Saxons had, per Jefferson, developed the best laws and were the
people most capable of living in the system governed by those laws. This
claim of racial superiority and of the superior heritage was, of course,
attributed to divine mandate. Briggs describes early Americans as having
the sentiment that if ever God Almighty did concern himself about
forming a government for mankind to live happily under, it was that
which was established in England by our Saxon forefathers (Briggs
1966, 6).
Despite the liberal sentiments put forward in the Declaration of
Independence regarding the equality of men, it is clear that ethnicity, race,
and culture were major factors in the conceptualization of who was an
American in the early days of the nation. There is no reason to suppose,
writes Gordon, that the founding fathers looked upon the fledgling
country as an impartial melting pot for the merging of the various cultures
of Europe, or as a new nation of nations, or as anything but a society in
which, with important political modification, Anglo-Saxon speech and
institutional forma would be standard (Gordon 1964, 90). America was
to be, per Gordons understanding of the founding fathers, a new Anglo-
Saxon nation.
As the nation grew and expanded westward, Americans with
increasing frequency began to populate areas already inhabited and
claimed by other peoples; specifically Native Americans and Mexicans.
17

Armed conflicts arose as the United States conquered lands in its
westward march. Since Anglo-Americans viewed themselves as a special
people from a chosen race, it is easy to understand how they would view
other peoples they encountered as inferior, particularly since they were of
a different genotype. The belief that the peoples who inhabited the land
20 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


were inferior justified conquering the lands of western America and
displacing the inhabitants. Anglo-Americans reasoned that if land was
taken from the Native Americans or Mexicans, it was because the Native
Americans or Mexicans were unfit to make proper use of the land. It was
acknowledged that pain and suffering were being inflicted upon the
existing inhabitants, but this was easily excused. If the United States was
to remain in the minds of its people a nation divinely ordained for great
deeds, explains Horsman, then the fault for the suffering inflicted in the
rise to power and prosperity had to lie elsewhere (Horsman 1981, 210).
The fault lay in the inferior nature of the then current inhabitants. The
suffering was their fault because they were not worthy to possess the land.
With specific regard toward Mexicans, Horsman notes that the attitude
was one that, Mexicans had failed because they were a mixed, inferior
race with considerable Indian and some black blood, (ibid.). The
feelings of many in the United States in the early 1800's was that the
world would benefit if a superior race shaped the future of the Southwest,
(ibid.).
Horace Bushnell, speaking before the Society of Phi Beta Kappa
Alpha of Connecticut at Yale College 1837, remarked that if the quality of
the British people was changed into that of the Mexican five years would
make their noble island a seat of poverty and desolation (Bushnell 1837,
9).
18
For Bushnell, God had reserved America for the special people of
Saxon blood.
The onset of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) created a new
context for discussing who could be Americans. Specifically, the
question at issue was whether Mexico should be conquered and
incorporated into the United States. Although some supported the
position of conquering Mexico and assimilating its population, to others
the contemplation of incorporating Mexico was anathema because it
would have meant the assimilation of a principally inferior Indian
people. Senator John C. Calhoun firmly believed that the assimilation of
the Mexican people would be a terrible error. He stated, Ours, sir, is the
Government of the white race, (U.S. Congress, Senate 1848, 98).
Senator Jabez W. Huntington of Connecticut similarly argued against
incorporating Mexico into the Union stating that the American
constitution was not a constitution for people of every color, and
language, and habits (U.S. Congress, Senate 1845, Appendix 397). As
What is an American 21




before, ethnicity and race are being used as key characteristics for
describing who can be American.
19
Senator Huntington also added
language and culture as critical to the definition of who could be an
American.
The conclusion of the Mexican-American War did by no means
lessen negative feelings toward non-Anglo immigrants. Politically, these
nativist tendencies found voice through the American party, commonly
known as the Know-Nothings. Before assuming the Presidency, Lincoln
wrote:
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty
rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that all men
are created equal. We now practically read it all men
are created equal, except negroes. When the Know-
Nothings get control, it will read all men are created
equal, except negroes, and foreigners and Catholics.
(Lincoln 1947, 214)
In the late 1800s, the demographics of the new immigrant waves
underwent a significant change. The original or old immigrants to
America had come from a relatively narrow geographic area of Europe.
These immigrants were at least somewhat similar to the resident
population in terms of race, political experience, economics, and social
mores and practices. Hartman describes the old immigrants as having:
. . . high standards of living, a low rate of illiteracy, a
fairly active share in political self-government, and,
with the exception of the German and Irish Roman
Catholics, a uniform background of Protestant
Christianity. . . . Although viewed generally with
distrust and suspicion by many Americans upon their
arrival, they adopted American ideals and habits easily
and took their places as American settlers without too
great a visible interference with the traditional
American way of life. (Hartman 1967, 13-14)
The new immigrants of the mid- to late 1800s, however, were coming
from regions of Europe which had not previously supplied population to
America in appreciable numbers. These new immigrants came from:
. . . the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the
22 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Balkans-which were comparatively backward from a
political, social, and economic point of view when
compared with the regions of Europe which had sent
America its earlier type of immigrant. Standards of living
among these people were decidedly lower, illiteracy rates
ran high, experience with self government was practically
nil, and a subject race status seemed to be the general
rule. Very few had the common background of Protestant
Christianity which had distinguished the great majority of
their predecessors and which was so characteristic of the
majority of native Americans at that time. (Ibid., 14-15)
If those immigrants who were similar in background to the
established American population were received with suspicion, it is of
little surprise that immigrants with fewer similarities would be received
with even greater antagonism (ibid., 17).
Waters in her book Ethnic Options, writing about two of these new
immigrant groups notes:
Italians . . . were one of the most despised groups. Old-
stock Americans called them wops, dagos, and guineas
and referred to them as the Chinese of Europe and
just as bad as the Negroes. In the South some Italians
were forced to attend all-black schools, and in both the
North and the South they were victimized by brutality.
In 1875, the New York Times thought it perhaps
hopeless to think of civilizing them, or keeping them in
order, except by the arm of the Law.
The new immigrants were stereotyped as representatives of
some kind of lower species . . . Greeks were physically attacked in
Omaha, Nebraska, and they were forced out of Mountain View,
Idaho. (Waters 1990, 2)
Cubberley, writing in 1909, described southern and eastern Europeans
as being Illiterate, docile, lacking in self-reliance and initiative, and not
possessing the Anglo-Teutonic conceptions of law, order, and
government. He expressed concern that their arrival in America would
Adilute tremendously our national stock, and . . . corrupt our civic life.
What is an American 23




(Cubberley 1909, 15-16). Cubberley is claiming as an Anglo-Teutonic
characteristic the ability to deal with certain concepts of law, order, and
government. The ability to deal with these concepts qualified those of
Anglo-Teutonic heritage to be Americans. Conversely those of other
races would have difficulty being Americans because racially they lacked
this innate ability. Those new immigrants, being of a different
racial/ethnic stock, would dilute these positive characteristics and corrupt
American civic life. To Cubberley, race and ethnicity were considered
essential in judging who qualified to be American.
Kenneth L. Roberts, in his article, Why Europe Leaves Home, very
bluntly described the attitude of many Americans at the turn of the century
toward the new immigrants. Many were concerned with keeping America
pure:
Races cannot be cross-bred without mongrelization,
any more than a breed of dogs can be cross-bred
without mongrelization. The American nation was
founded and developed by the Nordic race, but if a few
more million members of the Alpine, Mediterranean
and Semitic races are poured among us, the results must
inevitably be a hybrid race of people as worthless and
futile as the good-for-nothing mongrels of Central
America and southeastern Europe. (Roberts 1922, 22)
These feelings were not only directed to new immigrants from
southern and eastern Europe, but also extended to the populations who
recently had come under the American umbrella as a result of the Spanish-
American War. Brewer, writing in 1902, reflected the concern of many
Americas when he stated:
Many of our citizens are to-day [sic] troubled by the
fact that, as the outcome of the late war with Spain, we
have taken distant islands with a large population of a
character illy [sic] in accord with that of the Anglo-
Saxon. We wonder what the outcome of this venture
will be. (Brewer 1902, 54)
What had been avoided in the Mexican-American War, the
subjugation of a large non-Anglo, non-European population, had come to
pass in the Spanish-American War. These populations which came under
24 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


the American umbrella were not considered, by many, qualified to be
American specifically because they were not Anglo-Saxon.
This manner of thinking, equating being American with being Anglo-
Saxon, has continued into the second half of the 20
th
century. In 1955,
Will Herberg, writing in the Protestant-Catholic-Jew, observed:
. . . the Americans image of himself is still the Anglo-
American ideal it was at the beginning of our
independent existence. The national type as ideal has
always been, and remains, pretty well fixed. (Herberg
1955, 33-34)
A 1988 California Poll asked the following question:
Because of immigration and other factors, the
population of California is rapidly changing to include
many more people of Hispanic and Asian background.
Some people are worried that the changing makeup of
California will make it hard to maintain American
Traditions and the American way of life. Others say
this is not a problem and that these groups quickly
adapt. How about you? Would you say that you are
very worried, somewhat worried or not at all worried
about this?
Over 50% of the respondents expressed some level of concern.
Seventeen percent of respondents replied that they were very worried,
with an additional 37% indicating that they were somewhat worried
(California Poll 1988).
In 1996, a letter to the editor by Patrick J. McDonnell in the Los
Angeles Times also expressed concern that immigrants were damaging the
American identity.
Today's near-record levels of immigration are
deforming the nation's character. The inexorable influx,
they warn could have dire long-term consequences:
overpopulation, rampant bilingualism, reduced job
opportunities for the native-born, and demographic
shifts that could result in dangerous ethnic separatism.
(Los Angeles Times August 11 1996, sec. A, 3)
What is an American 25




The use of racial/ethnic criteria for determining who qualifies as an
American still is used in some circles today. In his article in Foreign
Policy, Huntington similarly expresses the concern that the influx of large
numbers of Hispanic immigrants, particularly Mexicans, is an immediate
and serious challenge to Americas traditional identity (Huntington
2004). Glazer agrees that some consideration is still given to race as a
qualifying criterion. He notes that given this criterion, one can be a
citizen and yet not fully be an American:
A strong accent, a distant culture, is no bar to
citizenship, although it is clear that whatever we mean
by the American nation, the new citizen may not yet be
considered a full member of it by many of his fellow
citizens, because of race or accent. (Glazer 1996, 87-
88)
20

As Carlson observes, the reality is that many Americans rejected
non-Caucasians, however Americanized, as a part of the national
community (Carlson 1987, 56). James Fulford, writing a wibzine
response to an April 2001 National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru
states, . . . its much harder for visible minorities to forget their roots in
foreign lands and assimilate than it is for whites (Fulford 2004, emphasis
in original).
Americans have had a long tradition of using ethnicity
and race for determining who is considered American.
Brimelow perhaps summarizes these feelings best when
he writes, the American nation has always had a
specific ethnic core. And that core has been white.
(Brimelow 1995, 10)

A Brief Review of Culture as Criteria for Determining Who is
American
Beyond ethnicity and race, cultural factors have also historically been
used as criteria to determine who would be considered American.
Throughout American history there are those who have argued that
immigrants must abandon their native cultures in order to become truly
and fully American. Woodrow Wilson stated:
26 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks
of himself as belonging to a particular national group in
America has not yet become an American.
(Dinnocenzo 1992, 16)
The concern, as expressed by Horace Bridges in his book On
Becoming an American, was that immigrants who maintained attachment
to the cultures of their countries of origin would not become American.
Bridges, an immigrant himself, wrote, All around us we find churches
and schools and homes in which the Polish, the Greek, the Italian, or the
German language is exclusively employed . . . . The result, feared
Bridges, would be that individuals raised under these conditions would
have dissociated [sic] from their minds the life and ideals of the
[American] nation (Bridges 1919, 123-124).
It would seem that the concern over an immigrants loyalty to native
culture emanates from equating cultural loyalty to national or political
loyalty. This seems to be the issue Gordon is addressing when he states
that if immigrants adopt American values and goals they will not impose
alien demands on the body politic (Gordon 1964, 104). This concern
was seen played out during the beginnings of the First World War. Prior
to official U.S. entrance into the war, German-American cultural
associations took a political stand and spoke out in favor of Germany in its
conflict against France and England. In other words, principally cultural
associations were taking a political position in favor of the country of
origin of the members of the association. Bergquist, writes;
For some German-American leaders and newspaper
editors . . . especially those active in the National
German-American Alliance, the support of German
culture in America became identified with support of
Germanys position in the European conflict.
(Bergquist 1992, 66)
The question that needs to be answered then is how strong a
connection is there between an immigrants loyalty to his native culture
and loyalty to his native country. If a strong connection does exist
between the two, then abandonment of native culture would seem to be a
legitimate condition to place upon immigrants in order for them to qualify
as Americans. If however, there is only a limited connection or no
connection between cultural and political loyalty, then abandonment of
What is an American 27




native culture would appear to be an unnecessary request to make of new
immigrants.
Dahl is among the scholars who comments on the nexus between
political culture and culture in general. Dahl expressed the opinion that
political culture does not stand independent or unaffected by the broader
culture of the people in which it exists (Dahl 1996, 3). With different
groups having loyalties to various native cultures, a situation of hyper-
egoism might result. Dahl describes hyper-egoism as a situation in which
there would be a fragmentation of community interest and concern, with
concern for either the individual or for a subgroup taking precedent to
concern for the community as a whole. What would exist would be a
kind of polar antithesis to the politics of civic virtue (ibid., 9-10). To
maintain loyalty to a native culture rather than adopting the American
culture may nourish these seeds of divisiveness. Individual and group
identities and loyalties will exist, warns Dahl at the expense of
identification with a loyalty to the nation or the country (ibid., 10).
Essentially this same sentiment was expressed from a slightly
different perspective by Brewer who stated that loyalty to the United
States must take precedence over all other associations. Brewer writes:
Among the ideals filling the aspiring soul of every
citizen of these United States should be the ideal nation.
Neither himself nor his family, his friends, the
community in which he lives, nor even the single State
of which he is primarily a citizen should fill the
measure of his thoughts and labors-but the great
Republic, of which both himself and his family, friends,
community and state are but parts, should ever rise like
Mont Blanc among the Alps, the supreme object of
devotion and toil. (Brewer 1902, 119)
An additional concern regarding immigrants maintaining ties to their
native cultures was expressed by Philip Gleason. Beyond the possibility
of political loyalty hiding beneath the surface of or masquerading as
loyalty to culture, Gleason raises the concern that those who currently
champion ethnic diversity (multiculturalism) implicitly deny the
possibility for a unitary American identity based on agreement upon
common principles (Gleason 1984). Schlesinger concurs, calling the
28 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


desire to maintain ethnic/cultural identity the cult of ethnicity which, he
believes, is producing a divided nation of minorities rather than a unified
America (Schlesinger 1992, 112). Petersen agrees, cautioning that one
reason some nation states have become weaker is that their ethnic
components are stronger (Petersen 1997, 277). Thus, maintenance of an
immigrant culture may be anti-American, because it weakens America.
Wilkinson expresses similar concerns when he writes:
As our demographic picture becomes more diverse,
as our shared social and cultural traditions become
more varied, as our linguistic backgrounds become
more diffuse, and as our separatist tendencies become
more open and assertive, the concept of One Nation
Indivisible is thrown into doubt. (Wilkinson 1997,
197)
Similar feelings have been expressed in more formal political settings
as well. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), a participant on the Select
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, expressed his concerns
in the supplementary comments to the final report. Senator Simpson
wrote, If linguistic and cultural separatism rises above a certain level, the
unity and political stability of the nation will in time be seriously eroded
(U.S. Congress, Senate 1981, 6).
21

Of our most recent immigrants, Brimelow, writing in 1995, states that
they are . . . from completely different, and arguably incompatible,
cultural traditions
22
(Brimelow 1995, 10). If maintenance of an
immigrants native culture is a threat to America, as these authors have
postulated, the obvious solution, as seen by many, is that immigrants must
integrate into the existing anglophone society rather than forming
separate enclaves representing their homeland cultures within the United
States (Kymlicka 1995, 61-62). The historical American solution,
Carlson observes, has been that immigrants must abandon their native
manners of dress and grooming, and their native languages (Carlson 1987,
43). Specifically addressing Hispanic immigrants, Carlson goes on to
state, . . . Hispanics have a triple whammy, they are not Anglo, they are
not Protestant, and they speak Spanish (ibid., 56).

What is an American 29




Legal Cases Supporting the Use of Ascriptive Criteria
One way of demonstrating the degree to which race, ethnicity, and culture
were accepted as characteristics for determining who was an American is
to examine Supreme Court decisions addressing this question. An
examination of these decisions uncovers that through a large part of
American history the social and political attitudes expressed in the above
statements had legal sanction. As Smith writes, . . . American law [has]
long been shot through with forms of second-class citizenship, denying
personal liberties and opportunities for political participation to most of
the adult population on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and even
religion (Smith 1997, 2).
Beginning with the ratification of the Federal Constitution, legal
context existed for the Court to use race as a characteristic for determining
who fully qualifies as an American. One of the first issues addressed by
the Constitution was of the organization of Congress, based on rules
regarding enumeration to allocate representation to the differing states.
Article 1 sec. 2 (3) distinguishes between, free persons, Indians not taxed,
and other persons, meaning slaves. Only 3/5ths of slaves, essentially
Blacks, were to be counted toward the enumeration. This Constitutional
mandate, in effect declaring Blacks to be only 3/5 persons, provided a
constitutionally based racial rationale for determining who could be fully
American. After all, if Blacks did not merit consideration as full persons,
they could hardly merit consideration as full Americans. The Supreme
Court specifically commented on this concept in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
60 U.S. 393 (1857). Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, in delivering the
majority opinion, posed the question as to whether Blacks were intended
to be included as people of the United States. He wrote:
We think they are not, and that they are not included,
and were not intended to be included, under the word
'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim
none of the rights and privileges which that instrument
provides for and secures to citizens of the United
States. (Id. at 404)
Taney goes on to write that Blacks were a subordinate and inferior
class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and
30 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority . . . .
Id. at 404. The language in this decision made it clear that the opinion of
the Court was that Blacks simply could not qualify to truly and fully be
Americans because they were racially an inferior class of beings.
With the Civil War came the emancipation of the slaves and the
passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. While
these Amendments were intended to erase the division between Whites
and Blacks, the legal opinion expressed in the Dred Scott decision that
non-Whites were an inferior people not meriting full consideration as
Americans continued to hold sway.
23
Additional opinions from the
Supreme Court strengthened the use of race as a criterion upon which full
standing in society could be granted or withheld.
In 1883, the cases which jointly became known as The Civil Rights
Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) came before the Court. In 1875, Congress had
passed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against any citizen
in the full enjoyment of public transportation, inn accommodations,
theaters, and other places of public amusement. The Supreme Court
ruled, however, that Congress had overstepped is authority, and therefore
the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. Although the decision was
based principally on legal questions regarding what constituted state
action, the decision effectively permitted the continued discrimination
against non-whites in public transportation, inn accommodations, theaters,
and other places of public amusement, thus maintaining the status of non-
whites as not fully American.
24

In what almost seems like a reversal in their manner of thinking, in
1896 Congress would pass literacy tests as a means of limiting the number
of immigrants coming into the United States from undesirable countries.
First as a congressman and then as a senator, Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA)
championed these tests believing they would be effective in weeding out
the inferior races which were most alien to the great body of the people
of the United States. These included, the Italian, Russian, Poles,
Hungarians, Greeks and Asiatics. Conversely, English-speakers,
Germans, Scandinavians, and French would likely not be filtered out (U.S.
Congress, Senate 1896, 2817).
What is an American 31




Measures had also been taken specifically against Chinese
immigration. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which
was followed by even stricter legislation in 1884. As a result of these
laws, Chinese individuals who had been resident in the U.S., but traveled
abroad, could not return to the U.S. unless they had an identification
certificate. In some cases even individuals who had been out of the
country when the legislation was passed, and hence were physically
unable to obtain the requisite identification certificate, were not allowed
re-entry (Smith 1997, 366). Although overturning the decision in one
such case, (Chew Heong v. U.S., 112 U.S. 536 (1884)) Justice Stephen
Field wrote in his dissenting opinion that the Chinese could not assimilate
with the American people, yet were coming to the United States in vast
hordes. In 1888, Congress passed an even stricter law leading to what is
known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889).
Chae Chan Ping had lived in California for twelve years. He left for
China in 1887 with the then required re-entry certificate. He returned to
California one week after the passage of the 1888 legislation, and was told
his certificate was invalid and hence his re-entry illegal. The Supreme
Court sustained the lower court decisions, and denied Ping entry into the
U.S.
In 1891, the Supreme Court, with Justice Field now writing the
majority opinion, upheld the dismissal of Chinese testimony merely on the
basis of race (Quock Ting v. U.S., 140 U.S. 417 (1891)). In 1892,
Congress passed the Geary Act which, presumed all Chinese including
U.S. citizens of Chinese descent, to be deportable aliens unless they
proved otherwise (Smith 1997, 368). Some lower courts questioned the
adverse assumptions of this legislation, but the Supreme Court in Fong
Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 (1893) ruled the law to be constitutional.
Although Justices Brewer, Fuller, and Field wrote a lengthy dissent, no
one made much of the fact that some U.S. citizens were now facing
threatening requirements that others did not, simply because of their race
(Smith 1997, 369).
In 1896, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the landmark
case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). The Court interpreted
the Fourteenth Amendments provision for equal protection to be satisfied
by the concept of separate but equal. This decision gave specific Supreme
32 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Court sanction to the division of American society by race. The Court, in
the majority opinion, specifically stated that legal distinction did not imply
superiority and inferiority but merely provided for the preservation of the
public peace and good order. Although trying to walk a narrow line of
allowing racial differentiation while not relegating a particular race to a
lower and limited station in society, this is in fact what the Court did. In
his dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan made two key observations. First,
he noted, it was clear to all that the law Plessy was challenging had as its
purpose not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars
occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied
by or assigned to white persons. And second, that the white race deems
itself to be the dominant race in this country. From Justice Harlans
point of view, separate but equal was merely a way of keeping non-whites
from fully participating in the American mainstream; essentially from
fully being American. Chase and Ducat, commenting on this case,
observed . . . it provided the legalistic smokescreen behind which an
exploitive society operated for the next six decades (Chase and Ducat
1979, 729). The effect of the decision was to allow legal sanction for
limiting access of non-whites to certain aspects of the broader American
society, including accommodations, transportation, restaurants, schools,
etc. The impact was significant. As Smith writes in Civic Ideals:
A few whites may have believed that they were
creating a separate civic status for blacks that either
was equal or on its way to being so. But most knew
that they were making blacks second-class citizens at
best, and many anticipated that under those conditions
blacks would leave or, more probably, perish. (Smith
1997, 371-7)
Public transportation, restaurants, and schools were not the only
aspects of society from which non-whites were excluded. Participation in
political parties, and hence in the political process (the essential nature of
which is discussed subsequently), was also restricted specifically by race.
In Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935) Grovey, a black male,
citizen of the United States and of the state and county, and a member of
and believer in the tenets of the Democratic Party, [295 U.S. 45, 46]
residing in the state of Texas, petitioned the courts after having been
denied an absentee ballot for a primary election solely on the basis of his
What is an American 33




race. This denial was in keeping with resolutions adopted at the Texas
Democratic Partys state convention limiting party membership to whites
only. Specifically, the resolution, adopted May 24, 1932 read:
Be it resolved, that all white citizens of the State of
Texas who are qualified to vote under the Constitution
and laws of the state shall be eligible to membership in
the Democratic party and as such entitled to participate
in its deliberations. [295 U.S. 45, 47]
In Grovey, the court ruled that the action of the Texas Democratic
Party Convention could not be deemed state action, and therefore did not
fall under the purview of the 14
th
Amendment. This meant that the Texas
Democratic Party could deny Grovey membership in the Democratic party
and access to a ballot in the Texas primary elections solely based on his
race. Given that the Democratic party was by far the majority party in
Texas at that time, exclusion from the party essentially meant exclusion
from any meaningful opportunity to influence the political process.
Although other cases exist where different devices, such as poll taxes or
literacy tests, were used to deny non-white populations from access to the
polls, the Grovey case is noteworthy and cited here because the decision
sustained the exclusion of individuals specifically and openly on the basis
of race. Of this time period, Smith writes, few judges denied that
citizenship could be denied or limited on racial grounds (Smith 1997,
365).
In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) and Korematsu v.
United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) the Court sustained the use of curfews
and military exclusion zones on the basis of race. In these cases, the
curfews and military exclusion zones were applicable only to Japanese
Americans, clearly differentiating the rights of individuals by ethnicity
and race. In the dissenting opinion in Korematsu, Justice Jackson
emphasized this distinction by race when he wrote that had the defendant
been one of four individuals in that zone that evening, with the other three
being a German alien enemy, an Italian alien enemy, and a citizen of
American-born ancestors, convicted of treason but out on parole only
Korematsus presence would have violated the order . . . only in that he
was born of different racial stock. [323 U.S. 214, 243]
34 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


In addition to these cases, other legal practices sustained the
relegation of non-whites to marginal roles in American society. For
example, non-whites were limited as to their opportunity to participate on
juries; they were restricted as to where they could purchase property; laws
were enacted and used to persecute their businesses; anti-miscegenation
laws prohibited interracial marriages; and, of course, the right to vote
among non-whites was limited through a variety of methods. Even from
the few examples cited here it can been seen that ethnicity and race have
been used as criteria to distinguish between who could fully participate in
American society, and who could be legally kept at the margin of
American society.
Ethnicity, Race, and Culture as Criteria for Being American: A
Summary
What has been demonstrated in this discussion thus far is that for much of
its history, America has used race, ethnicity, and culture as criteria for
describing and determining who is an American. As Schlesinger
observes, in his work The Disuniting of America:
The [American] melting pot has had, unmistakably an
inescapably, an Anglocentric flavor. For better or
worse, the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition was
for two centuries--and in crucial respects still is-- the
dominant influence on American culture and society.
This tradition provided the standard to which other
immigrant nationalities were expected to conform, the
matrix into which they would be assimilated.
(Schlesinger 1992, 28)
The use of these criteria have had legal sanction, beginning with a
Constitutional decree that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person,
and have been supported for many years by decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court. As Smith, in Civic Ideals, states:
. . . when restrictions on voting rights, naturalization,
and immigration are taken into account, it turns out that
for over 80 percent of U.S. history, American laws
declared most people in the world legally ineligible to
become full U.S. citizens solely because of their race,
original nationality, or gender. (Smith 1997, 15)
What is an American 35




Expecting individuals to conform to the white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant tradition, as described by Schlesinger above, and enforcing
those expectations by legal measures meant that to varying degrees, the
ascriptive criteria of race, ethnicity, and culture, were the standard by
which anyone trying to be an American was judged.
Problems in Using Ethnicity, Race, and Culture as Qualifying
Criteria
The brief examination in the previous section has demonstrated how
ethnicity, race, and culture have been used throughout much of American
history as criteria to determine who qualifies to be considered fully an
American. It is worth noting that the use of ethnicity, race, or culture as
qualifiers is not unique to the United States. Germany, for example, has a
very strong identity of a Germanic people. This sense of a German ethnic
identity is still manifest in German immigration law which is based upon
the principle of jus sanguinis, the right of blood. This jus sanguinis
approach has been clearly demonstrated in how Germany has treated
ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe. These immigrants were
legally defined as Germans and immediately accorded all the rights of
citizenship (Brubaker 1993, 79). In stark contrast, children of Turkish
gastarbeiters (guest workers), even though born in Germany, are not
automatically granted German citizenship. German immigration laws are
such that it is fully possible that neither the Turkish immigrant to
Germany, nor his children or grandchildren born in Germany, might ever
obtain German citizenship. Germanys nationhood is an ethnocultural,
not a political fact (ibid., 81).
America, however, is not the same as Germany. Americans are not
their own people. Americans do not have a culture with a historic
background such as the Germans. As Walzer states:
It never happened that a group of people called
Americans came together to form a political society
called America. The people are Americans only by
virtue of having come together. (Walzer 1990, 595)
Thus, a tension exists. For although, as was shown earlier in this
chapter, most white Americans throughout most of American history
simply considered colored Americans inferior and unassimilable,
36 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


(Schlesinger 1992, 58) people have come to reside in America not because
it is an enclave of white Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, but rather because of
the political, social, and economic freedoms America affords. And the
acceptance of these immigrants, whether they are Anglo-Saxon or not, is
sanctioned by the liberal political concepts of inclusion which have just as
long a history in America as the belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority. The
existence of simultaneous multiple traditions is a view supported by
Smith, as he writes:
This multiple traditions thesis holds that American
political actors have always promoted civic ideologies
that blend liberal, democratic, republican, and

inegalitarian ascriptive elements in various
combinations designed to be politically popular.
(Smith 1997, 6)
The existence of simultaneous multiple traditions is evident when we
read Franklins concerns (cited above) about the increasing immigrant
German population at roughly the same time that American political
rhetoric is teaching that all men are created equal.
If we focus on the political philosophy that all men are created equal,
then it is a natural progression to believe that all men should have an equal
opportunity of becoming American, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or
cultural background. Although, as has been pointed out above, this has
not always been in the case in the past, it does appear to be the direction in
which American society and Supreme Court legal decisions are moving.
Many groups who were once shunned are now considered part of the
American social, political, and cultural mainstream. Again, noting
Franklins concern for the increasing German immigrant population in his
day, it is interesting to note that today Americans list Germany as an
ancestral homeland on their census forms more often than any other single
country. What at one point in time was a threatening immigrant group is
now a standard American heritage. Similarly, in the mid to late 1800s,
the large numbers of Irish-Catholic immigrants were viewed as a threat by
the then established American population (Clark 1992, 77-102). Yet
today one of our most fondly remembered presidents, John F. Kennedy,
was of very publicly demonstrated Irish-Catholic ancestry. Across the
centuries of our existence as a nation, Americans have in many respects
What is an American 37




behaved liberally in their adoption or adaptation of customs, traits, and
verbiage of many different immigrant groups. As Americans we now find
it acceptable to acknowledge or personally celebrate festival days which at
one time were associated with disparaged ethnic immigrant populations.
As previously noted, we celebrate St. Patricks Day, Cinco de Mayo, and
Oktoberfest. We use terms such as kindergarten (literally childrens
garden in German), gesundheit (the German word for health), a la mode
(French meaning after the fashion), and macho (Spanish indicating
masculine pride). We take some amount of pride in being experienced in
eating a wide range of foods such as falafel, pizza, mu shu chicken, tacos,
sushi, and Irish coffee. That salsa has become, in recent years, the number
one condiment speaks volumes as to our acceptance of aspects of
immigrant cultures. Throughout American history, the culture of
immigrant groups has often been adopted or adapted, and America has
often come to claim what were once immigrant customs as its own.
Thus, not only have once-shunned immigrant groups become part of
the American mainstream, but increasingly, the use of ethnicity, race, or
culture is being considered both socially and legally inappropriate as
criteria by which to judge who qualifies as American.
This next section will now examine:
the conceptual problems with using ethnicity, race, or culture
as qualifying criteria for determining who is American, and
the Supreme Court cases which have progressively declared
the use of ethnicity and race unconstitutional as criteria for
participation in varying aspects of American Society.
Conceptual Problems with Ethnicity or Race, as a Criterion
The use of ethnicity or race as a criterion for determining who is
American suffers from four principal difficulties. These are:
first, an ethnocentric approach violates the American liberal
tradition of inclusion,
38 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


second, Americans are not a people in any ethnic or racial
sense,
third, ethnicity or race is a poor discriminating criterion for
detecting threats to the nation, and
fourth, the use of race as a criterion specifically presents an
unattainable standard for immigrants.

An Ethnocentric Approach Would Violate American Liberal Tradition
of Inclusion.
Although, as has been demonstrated in the previous section, America has
had a tradition of using race, ethnicity, and culture (an ethnocentric
approach) as criteria for determining who can be considered an American,
there are many scholars who argue that America has had a similarly strong
tradition of liberal inclusion. Smith, for example, in his article The
American Creed and American Identity: The Limits of Liberal
Citizenship in the United States, although conceding that America has a
long history of using ethnicity, race, and culture as criteria for determining
American-ness, also emphasizes that the United States has a strong
tradition of liberal thought and rhetoric (Smith 1988, 226). These two
traditions or lines of thought are in direct opposition. The American
liberal tradition of inclusion, in declaring that all men are created equal,
specifically disregards ethnicity, race, or culture as criteria for determining
who is American. The existence of a liberal tradition does not in and of
itself invalidate the ethnocentric approach. However, it does open the
door for a reconsideration of using ethnocentric criteria for determining
who is an American.
Many scholars and public figures have in fact compared the two
approaches and selected the liberal approach over the ethnocentric
approach. Kallen, for example, writing in the mid-1940s, effectively
dismissed the ethnocentric approach in favor of the more liberal inclusive
approach when he wrote that to impose Anglo-Saxon conformity upon
immigrants to the United States violated the traditional American ideals of
inclusion (Gordon 1964, 145). On the other hand, a liberal inclusive
approach, which would result in cultural diversity, he described as being,
entirely in harmony with the traditional ideals of American political and
What is an American 39




social life. Kallen referred to the Declaration of Independence as an
authorizing source to support the liberal inclusive approach. Kallen
wrote:
Equal, in the intent of the Declaration . . . is an
affirmation of the right to be different: of the parity of
every human being and every association of human
beings according to their kinds, in the rights of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Ibid.)
Kallen is saying that it does not matter of what race or culture an
individual may be, they still can qualify for the American benefits of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Franklin D. Roosevelt would have concurred that race and ethnicity
were not appropriate criteria for determining who was American. In 1943
he stated:
Americanism is a matter of the mind and the heart;
Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race
and ancestry. A good American is one who is loyal to
this country and to our creed of liberty and democracy.
(Schlesinger 1992, 37)
Almond and Verba express support for the liberal inclusive approach
when they propose that it is acceptable for individuals to differ in religion
and in other facets of their private lives as long as individuals act as good
citizens of the American civic culture (Fuchs 1990, 5).
Jacobsohn, Jeffery, and Dunn, in their book Diversity and
Citizenship, specifically write about the debate between multiculturalism
and cultural conception of nationhood, which emphasizes the historic
connections of the American people to a particular religious or ethnic
tradition (Jacobsohn, Jeffery, and Dunn 1996, xi). Regarding the
ethnocentric or cultural conception approach, they conclude that
. . . to the extent that this notion leads to depriving
people of their full rights of citizenship solely on the
basis of primordial attachments such as race, religion,
or ethnicity, then such a definition is clearly
incompatible

40 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


with the logic of a nation defined by its dedication to
certain self-evident principles of political morality.
(Ibid.)
Although the arguments presented by the scholars above are not
sufficient in and of themselves to discard the ethnocentric approach of
determining who is American, they do point out the incompatibility of the
ethnocentric approach with the long-standing American liberal tradition of
believing that all men are created equal.
Americans are Not Truly a People
Americans are not a people in the same sense that the Germans, the
French, the Chinese, the Japanese, or members of many other nations are
distinct peoples. Walzers statement, given above, is well worth
repeating.
It never happened that a group of people called
Americans came together to form a political society
called America. The people are Americans only by
virtue of having come together. (Walzer 1990, 595)
Because the United States has been built by immigrants from
countries and peoples around the globe, they represent every
conceivable race, religion, [and] language group, and share, in
Kymlickas words virtually nothing in common (Kymlicka 1995, 61).
It is specifically because they do not share a common history, culture,
language, blood, or religion, yet have nevertheless coalesced into a nation,
that Americans consider themselves exceptional. The concept of being
American is based on common allegiance to a political system designed to
accommodate wide differences (Harrington 1980, 678). If, as Harrington
states, the true measure of being American is allegiance to a political
system, then it is reasonable to accept Walzers proposal that immigrants
can retain whatever identity they had before becoming Americans . . .
(Walzer 1990, 595).

Ethnicity or Race is a Poor Discriminating Criterion for Detecting
Threats to the Nation
A concern which has often been raised is that non-Anglo immigrants pose
a threat to our national security. This specifically was the issue in the
What is an American 41




Hirabayashi and Korematsu cases cited above. Both Hirabayashi and
Korematsu were convicted of violating regulations specifically aimed at
curtailing the movements of individuals who were racially Japanese. But,
as Justice Jackson emphasized in his dissenting opinion, these regulations
would, in reality, have been ineffective protecting the military zones in
question from a true German enemy, an Italian enemy, or a treasonous
individual of American heritage. Justice Jackson specifically noted that
Korematsus presence in the exclusionary zone violated the order not
because he was a threat, but only because of his racial stock. [323 U.S.
214, 243] If there is a concern regarding the safety and integrity of the
nation as a political entity and sovereign nation, the use of ethnicity, race,
and culture does not provide accurate criteria by which to judge what
individuals are truly a threat. There is no basis for assuming individuals
of one ethnic group, or race, or culture are automatically more loyal to the
United States or more of a threat to the nations security. Hispanics for
example earned 12 of 431 Medals of Honor in World War II, 9 of 131
Medals of Honor in the Korean War, and 13 of 239 Medals of Honor in
the Vietnam war. Exact figures on the number of Hispanics serving in
these conflicts are not available because the military, like the census
bureau, did not at that time track Hispanics. Estimates place the number
of Hispanics serving in Vietnam at 80,000 out of a total of 2.7 million.
This would mean that although Hispanics represented only 3% of those
deployed to Vietnam, they received over 5% of the Medals of Honor
bestowed in that conflict.
25


Race Is an Unattainable Standard for Immigrants
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, a principal objective of this
chapter is ultimately to develop minimum criteria of what it means to be
an American. For the criteria to be of any value, it must be at least
theoretically achievable by the populations of interest, legal Hispanic
immigrants. If a selected criterion is not achievable, it will be of no value
in differentiating between those immigrants who identify as Americans
and those who identify with their countries of origin, because neither
group could meet that criterion. Ethnicity and race are unobtainable
criteria because they would require the Hispanic immigrant population to
become physically white to be considered American. This is obviously
not an achievable goal. To select a criteria which could never be achieved
42 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


would a priori disqualify the population of interest and render this entire
discussion meaningless. Carlson recognizes this problem in using
ethnicity and race as criteria for being American. He writes that even if
immigrants were to totally abandon their native culture and submit to
cultural genocide, they simply could not conform with the color that
white Americans associated with ideological purity in the U.S. (Carlson
1987, 59). Kallen, in his work Culture and Democracy in the United
States, concurs, stating that while men may change their clothes, their
politics, their wives, their religions, their philosophies, to a greater or
lesser extent: they cannot change their grandfathers (Kallen, 1924, 122).
The use of ethnicity and race as qualifiers for being American does not fit
the requirement of a minimum standard for being American sought for in
this chapter.
Having discussed four conceptual reasons for not using ethnicity,
race, or culture as criteria for determining who is American, we will now
turn our attention to the Supreme Court cases that have marked the decline
in the use of these criteria.
Legal Cases Disallowing the Use of Ethnicity and Race
One way to trace the decline in the official or legally sanctioned use of
ethnicity, race and culture as determining criteria of who can be an
American is to examine Supreme Court decisions.
The Fourteenth Amendment, as noted above, was initially interpreted
by the courts in cases such as The Civil Rights Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson,
or Grovey v. Townsend, in a manner which sustained the use of ethnicity
and race as criteria for determining who could fully participate as an
American. However, over time rulings have increasingly interpreted this
amendment in a manner which supports the argument that race should not
be used as a criterion for determining who is permitted to participate in all
aspects of American society, or in other words, who is fully American.
As previously noted, one limitation which has been commonly placed
upon non-whites has been their exclusion from participation in juries.
This issue was specifically addressed by the Court in Strauder v. West
Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). In October of 1874, Strauder was indicted
for murder in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, in West Virginia. Before
What is an American 43




the commencement of the trial Strauder petitioned to have the case moved
to the Circuit Court of the United States, on the grounds that the laws of
West Virginia allowed only white males to serve on juries. Because
Strauder was Black, and because he had been a slave, he did not believe
he would receive full and equal benefits and protection under the law.
The state Circuit Court denied his petition, and after his conviction, the
State Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Strauder appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed
with Strauder, overturned his murder conviction, and moved the re-trial to
a federal court. Justice Strong, in the majority opinion, described the
provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment as . . . a series of constitutional
provisions having a common purpose; namely, securing to a race recently
emancipated, a race that through many generations had been held in
slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy (100 U.S. 303,
306). Justice Strong, went on to note that the Fourteenth Amendment
implied a positive immunity from any legal distinction implying
inferiority because of race.
26
In its decision, the Court was clearly
acknowledging that race had been used as a selection criterion for
determining who could function as an American, meaning in this case,
serving on juries. The Court was now calling into question the legitimacy
of race as a criterion, particularly given the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is important to recognize that the use of race as a discriminating
criteria by which individuals were either included or excluded from being
fully American was not directed exclusively at Blacks but at other non-
Anglo immigrant groups as well. For example, in August of 1885, Yick
Wo was cited for unlawfully operating a laundry service in a wooden
building without the consent of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
The facts presented to the Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
(1886), detailed how although Yick Wo had conducted business in this
location for the past 22 years, and had obtained an appropriate license
from the board of fire-wardens in 1884, he had not been granted the
special permit required by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The
facts also showed, however, that in all cases where such permits had been
sought by Chinese immigrants they had been denied, whereas all
applications submitted by whites, with the exception of one, had all been
44 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


approved. Further, whereas approximately 150 citations had been issued
against Chinese operators, no citations had ever been issued against
whites.
The Court ruled in favor of Yick Wo indicating that whatever the
original intent of the regulation had been, the application was so clearly
oppressive of a particular segment of the population that it violated the
principle of equal protection. Justice Mathews, in the majority opinion
wrote regarding the San Francisco statute, The conclusion cannot be
resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and
nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the
law, is not justified. The discrimination is therefore illegal . . . [118 U.S.
356, 374]. Again, as in Strauder, the Court viewed race as an illegitimate
criterion for determining who can participate unhindered in American
society.
In Grovey (1935), cited above, the Supreme Court had allowed the
exclusion of Blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic primaries
reasoning that the exclusion was not state action and therefore the
Fourteenth Amendment did not apply. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649
(1944) overturned Grovey and resumed a course started by the Court in
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), and Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S.
73 (1932) explicitly declaring unconstitutional the exclusion of
individuals from participation in political parties on the basis of race,
regardless of whether the decision to do so was made by a formal or
informal government entity, or by the general party membership. Who
was permitted to participate in the American political system was not to
be determined by race.
Another critical aspect of being American is the right to be secure in
ones property. This right is enumerated in both the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. In the case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Shelley, who was Black, purchased a parcel of land which, unknown to
him at the time of purchase, was under a restrictive covenant prohibiting
sale of the land to buyers of the Negro or Mongolian race. Kraemer, a
white landowner in the area whose property was under a similar restrictive
covenant, brought suit against Shelley to prevent him from assuming
ownership. The Missouri Supreme Court sided with Kraemer ruling the
sale constituted a breach of contract. The U.S. Supreme Court, however,
What is an American 45




reversed the State Supreme Court decision and ruled in favor of Shelley,
in the process dealing a significant blow to the use of these types of
restrictive covenants.
27
Chief Justice Vinson, in giving the opinion of the
court, wrote,
Whatever else the framers [of the Fourteen
Amendment] sought to achieve, it is clear that the
matter of primary concern was the establishment of
equality in the enjoyment of basic civil and political
rights and the preservation of those rights from
discriminatory action on the part of the States based on
considerations of race or color. [334 U.S. 1 , 23].
Still looming over all of these decisions, however, was the doctrine of
separate but equal, established in the Plessy, which justified nearly 60
years of limiting access to various aspects of American society based upon
the doctrine of separate but equal. In a piecemeal fashion, this doctrine
was being challenged. In the cases Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada 305
U.S. 337 (1938), Sipuel v. Oklahoma 332 U.S. 631 (1948), Sweatt v.
Painter 339 U.S. 629 (1950), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
339 U.S. 637 (1950), educational facilities or opportunities which had
been established for Blacks were found to be inferior to those in existence
for whites, and therefore the school systems were in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Because, in each of these cases, the systems
were found to be unequal, the Court had been able to resolve the cases
without having to specifically address the Plessy doctrine of separate but
equal. However, in the Sweatt decision, Chief Justice Vinson, writing for
the Court, laid the conceptual groundwork for a direct challenge to Plessy.
Vinson observed that beyond the inequality in the facilities provided to
whites and blacks, there was also a difference which was more important.
He wrote, . . . the University of Texas Law School possesses to a far
greater degree those qualities which are incapable of objective
measurement but which make for greatness in a law school. [339 U.S.
629, 634] In this case, the Court was approaching the concept that even
with equality of facilities an inherent inequality might still exist.
The doctrine of separate but equal was finally directly addressed by
the Court in response to four cases brought from Kansas, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Delaware, with a related case from the District of Columbia
46 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


which collectively became known as Brown v. Board of Education, 347
U.S. 483 (1954). Although the schools in Virginia and South Carolina
were obviously and extremely unequal, the schools in Kansas were
roughly comparable. Specifically because inequality was not at issue in
the Kansas schools, the case turned on the question of whether segregation
itself (the separate portion of separate but equal) caused inequality and
was therefore unconstitutional. The Court ruled that it did, and through
Brown, reversed and specifically rejected the 58 year old doctrine
established in Plessy. Chief Justice Warren, writing the opinion of the
Court, proposed that separating individuals, solely because of their race
generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community [347
U.S. 483, 494]. In this statement, Warren supports the concept, which has
been developed in this work that, in part through legal decisions, non-
whites had been relegated to a position of inferior status within the
American community; they had been relegated to a position of being not
quite fully American. Through Brown, the Court overturned Plessy and
the doctrine of separate but equal, and thereby removed a major legal
precedent which had been used to justify the use of race as a criterion for
selecting who fully could participate as an American.
The Supreme Courts decision in Brown could be viewed as a
beginning signal to significant changes in the legal atmosphere with
regards to the broader inclusion of all populations into the broader
American society. In 1957, Congress passed the first civil rights
legislation since Reconstruction, PL 85-315, which made it a crime to
prevent individuals from voting in federal elections. The Civil Rights Act
of 1964, PL 88-352, barred discrimination in employment, public
accommodations and federally funded programs, and created the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. In 1965, Congress passed the
Voting Rights Act, PL 89-110, which authorized federal examiners to
register voters in areas which were determined to have been practicing
discrimination.
In 1966 the Supreme Court handed down two key decisions, one
related to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the other related to the 1965
Voting Rights Act. In United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), six
white males had been charged with violating the civil rights of Black
individuals by, among other things, conspiring to injure, oppress,
threaten, and intimidate Black citizens in the enjoyment and exercise of
What is an American 47




their right to travel freely to and from the State of Georgia [383 U.S.
745, 757]. The charges had been dismissed by a lower court on the
grounds that the indictment did not involve rights which are attributes of
national citizenship [383 U.S. 745, 745]. The Supreme Court reversed
and remanded the decision of the lower court. By doing so, the Court
effectively affirmed a broad interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
allowing its coverage to extend to the act of private individuals and not
only state officials. The decision also gave a broad interpretation to the
attributes of national citizenship, including in this case the right to
unencumbered travel.
In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), a challenge was
brought to the court regarding the constitutionality of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 prohibition of New York elections laws requiring an ability to
read and write English. The Court upheld the right of Congress to
legislate a positive remedy to voting discrimination. Justice Brennan,
writing for the majority, said, The practical effect of 4 (e) is to prohibit
New York from denying the right to vote to large segments of its Puerto
Rican community. Congress has thus prohibited the State from denying to
that community the right that is preservative of all rights [384 U.S. 641,
652].
28

The Supreme Courts decision in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
(1967) to allow inter-racial marriage was another case which brought non-
whites closer to a state of equality with whites in all aspects of society. In
June of 1958, Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a white
man, both residents of Virginia, were married in the District of Columbia
pursuant to its laws. After their marriage, they returned to Virginia to
establish a home. In October of that year they were indicted by a grand
jury and charged with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. In
January of 1959, they pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to
one year in jail. The trial judge suspended the sentence on the condition
that the Lovings leave the state.
The Lovings left Virginia and took up residence in the District of
Columbia, but in 1963 they filed a motion in the Virginia state trial court
to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the
statutes which they were convicted of violating, violated the Fourteenth
48 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Amendment. The Lovings also brought a class action in the United States
District Court. The case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court.
The importance of this case to the members of non-white populations
seeking equal standing before the eyes of the law is attested to by a
number of amicus curiae briefs filed with the court on behalf of various
groups. Amici curiae briefs urging reversal of the convictions were filed
by National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and by the
NAACPs Legal Defense & Educational Fund separately. Also, by
special permission of the Court, William M. Marutani argued the cause for
reversal as amicus curiae, representing the Japanese American Citizens
League.
The Court overturned the conviction stating that it violated the
Fourteenth Amendment even though it was argued that the law was being
applied equally to blacks and whites. The Court reasoned that the purpose
of the Fourteenth Amendment was to remove all sources of invidious
racial discrimination in the States. Chief Justice Warren, delivering the
opinion of the Court, made it clear that race was not an acceptable
criterion upon which to base the rights of Americans. He wrote, We
have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict
the rights of citizens on account of race [388 U.S. 1, 11-12].
In 1968, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, PL 90-284, which
prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of most housing. 1968 also
saw the Supreme Court deliver a decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,
392 U.S. 409, which upheld 42 U.S.C. 1982 which prohibited racial
discrimination in the sale or rental of property. In this case, Joseph Lee
Jones, a Black individual, brought suit against Alfred H. Mayer Co.
alleging the respondent had refused to sell him a home on the sole basis
that he was Black. Lower courts had dismissed the case concluding that
42 U.S.C. 1982 applied only to state action. The Supreme Court again
gave a broader interpretation to the Law. Justice Stewart, delivering the
opinion of the Court wrote:
1982 appears to prohibit all discrimination against
Negroes in the sale or rental of property -
discrimination by private owners as well as
What is an American 49




discrimination by public authorities. Indeed, even the
respondents seem to concede that, if 1982 "means what
it says" - to use the words of the respondents' brief -
then it must encompass every racially motivated refusal
to sell or rent and cannot be confined to officially
sanctioned segregation in housing. Stressing what they
consider to be the revolutionary implications of so
literal a reading of 1982, the respondents argue that
Congress cannot possibly have intended any such
result. Our examination of the relevant history,
however, persuades us that Congress meant exactly
what it said. [392 U.S. 409, 421-422]
Through this decision, the Court ruled against another manner in
which non-white populations had been kept out of the mainstream of
American society.
Summary of Legal Cases
Previously in this chapter, Supreme Court cases were cited which
supported the use of race and ethnicity as criteria for determining who
could fully participate in U.S. society. In this section we have reviewed
Supreme Court cases which have ruled in the opposite direction, namely
that race and ethnicity are not acceptable criteria for making this
determination. Although the cases discussed in these two sections are
certainly not an exhaustive list of all cases decided by the Court in this
area, as is illustrated in table 1, these cases do demonstrate the shift in the
thinking of the Court on the use of race and ethnicity as criteria for
determining who is fully a member of the American community.
50 Hispanic Immigrant Identity



Table 1. Summary of Law Cases
Year Use of Ascriptive Criteria
Acceptable
Use of Ascriptive Criteria
Unacceptable
1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford
Blacks described as an
inferior class of beings


1880

Strauder v. West Virginia
Blacks cannot be excluded as
jurors
1883 The Civil Rights Cases
Congress overstepped its
bounds. Ruling permitted
continued discrimination in
public transportation, inn
accommodations, theaters,
and other places of public
amusement


1886

Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Discriminatory application of
a local law ruled a violation of
Equal Rights Clause
1893 Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.
Sustained Geary Act
deeming all Chinese to be
deportable unless they could
prove otherwise



1896

Plessy v. Ferguson
Established separate but
equal doctrine


1935 Grovey v. Townsend
Political parties can limit
membership by race


1944

Smith v. Allwright
Political parties cannot limit
membership by race
What is an American 51




Table 1. Summary of Law Cases, cont.
Year Use of Ascriptive Criteria
Acceptable
Use of Ascriptive Criteria
Unacceptable
1943 Hirabayashi v. U.S.
Race can be used in creating
and enforcing military
exclusion zones

1944 Korematsu v. U.S.
Race can be used in creating
and enforcing military
exclusion zones


1948

Shelley v. Kraemer
Restrictive covenants
prohibiting sale to Blacks or
Asians violates 14
th

Amendment
1954

Brown v. Board of Education
Separate but equal doctrine
overturned
1966

United States v. Guest
Affirmed broad interpretation
of 1964 Civil Rights Act
1966

Katzenbach v. Morgan
Affirmed proactive nature of
1965 Voting Rights Act
1967

Loving v. Virginia
Antimiscegenation statute
ruled to violate 14
th

Amendment
1968

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
Applied statute outlawing
discrimination in sale or rental
of property to private as well
as state action.
Although cases regarding the use of racial and ethnic criteria would
continue to be brought before various courts, it is clear with the statement
of Chief Justice Warren above, that race as a determining criterion for
who qualified for full acknowledgment and benefits as an American was
52 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


no longer acceptable and deemed unconstitutional. Wilkinson
summarizes the current situation well when he writes:
We stand before the law as equals. Its commands
speak to the citizen, not to his race. The Anglo
American and the Hispanic American pay the same
taxes and obey the same speed limits as the Asian
American and the African American. (Wilkinson 1997,
83)
Loyalty to Native Culture: The Remaining Question
Thus far we have shown how the use of the ascriptive criteria of ethnicity
and race are logically unsustainable and have in the last half of the 20
th

century been declared illegal for determining who can fully participate in
American society. Even after removing the social and legal justifications
for use of ethnicity and race as qualifying criteria, however, one additional
question remains. If an immigrant maintains a preference to the culture of
his country of origin, should this disqualify him from being considered an
American? Is cultural allegiance an appropriate criterion for determining
who is an American?
As cited above, Wilson stated:
America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks
of himself as belonging to a particular national group in
America has not yet become an American.
(Dinnocenzo 1992, 16)
While there are those who are concerned with immigrants
maintaining cultural loyalties, often because they equate cultural loyalty to
political loyalty as noted by Bergquist above, there are others who see
these concerns as overblown. Harrington, for example, believes that at
some point the concerns regarding an immigrant group maintaining a
native culture is nothing more than the . . . force of racial and ethnic
prejudice (Harrington 1980, 680). Harrington is saying that what may
drive the concern over, for example, Mexican immigrants celebrating
Cinco de Mayo is not that it might be an expression of latent political
loyalty to their native country, but rather simple prejudice against non-
white Mexicans. Harrington is raising the possibility that it isnt culture at
all or its possible connection to political loyalty, but rather simply
What is an American 53




prejudice against the immigrant population which is at the root of
expressed concerns over attachment to native culture.
Although Harrington raises a valid concern that some of the
objections to maintaining native cultural attachments may simply be latent
prejudice, this does not completely eliminate the concerns over
immigrants maintaining loyalty to their native cultures. However, to
validate the concern that cultural loyalty belies political loyalty, to move
this concern beyond the realm of mere xenophobia, it would need to be
demonstrated that there is a connection between loyalty to native culture
and political loyalty to native country. The additional step would also be
required of showing that this political loyalty to native country is at
conflict with loyalty toward the United States. While it may be conceded
that, as Harrington states, Loyalty to the United States requires that at
some point ethnic group demands for the homeland must be subordinated
to the larger interests of [this] country, meaning the U.S., this does not,
as Harrington also points out, absolutely preclude some continued
attention to the needs of an immigrants homeland (ibid., 683). Further,
exactly at what point loyalty to the United States limits or precludes
immigrants maintaining attachments to the native cultures, or the
promotion of political causes in their homelands has been, since World
War I, a very difficult point to determine and a subject of considerable
debate (ibid., 678). Harrington correctly points out that requirements of
loyalty in this regard have never been clearly defined by law, but more
often have been drawn by public opinion. If a line has been drawn at all,
writes Harrington, [it] has been drawn largely by popular reaction,
incident by incident, to various ways ethnic groups have been involved in
affairs of their homelands (ibid., 679-80).
In fact, at times the appeals of immigrants for causes in their
homelands have, as Harrington writes, aroused positive public
enthusiasm . . . (ibid.). At times then, the connections immigrants had to
their native countries, and the expressions of concern for political affairs
in those countries became a concern for the broader U.S. population.
Certainly the concern remains that the hyper-egoism Dahl warns of,
the concern for the narrow interests of a particular group (see page 31),
might result if different groups become focused only with affairs that
affect them in particular.
29
Other scholars consider the attempt to
54 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


influence American politics for the benefit of a societal sub-group one of
the more American things immigrants could do. Huntington states,
American history is the history of the efforts of groups to promote their
interests by realizing American ideals (Huntington 1981, 11-12).
The connection between maintenance of an immigrants culture and
the likelihood of a dangerous level of retained political allegiance to an
immigrants country is at best tenuous, and is further weakened by the fact
that in some cases the culture which an immigrant maintains does not or
cannot equate to loyalty to a native country. In some cases the attachment
to a supposed native culture is actually an attachment to a social
construct which does not even exist outside of the United States. Over
time, some established immigrant communities in the United States
developed their own culture similar to but different from the culture in
their native lands.
Early German immigrants illustrate this point well. Franklins
previously cited comments regarding German immigrants, seems to imply
that the German immigrants were a homogenous group coming from a
common background in the Old Country. In actuality, German
immigrants at that time were both Protestant and Catholic, spoke varying
regional dialects, and had different regional loyalties. There would be, in
fact, no unified German nation for another 100 years. It was the
juxtaposition of their native cultures to the American culture that
effectively reconfigured their ancestral identity and constructed a common
German identity here in America.
Hispanic immigrants today are also not a homogeneous group, but
rather are very heterogeneous. They come from different nations with
widely varying national cultures, as well as widely varying cultures within
their countries of origin. As with the early German immigrants, what
often unites Hispanic immigrants in the United States is a common
language, and the juxtaposition of their native cultures to the American
culture.
Cuban Americans pose a slightly different example. Although the
Cuban American population in the United States is very cohesive, and
they all have loyalty to a common homeland, the homeland to which they
What is an American 55




have loyalty, is to a non-Castro Cuba; a Cuba which exists only in exile in
the United States.
If the loyalties to native culture expressed by some immigrants are in
fact loyalties to a American construction of their native culture, then it is
less likely that this loyalty to culture will cause loyalty to a political entity
other than the U.S. It is perhaps with this realization that Franklin
eventually overcame his earlier concerns about immigrants, and:
Thought it sufficient proof of fealty to republican ideals
and principles of government [that] individuals had left
the countries of their birth and had chosen to live in the
new nation. (Kettner 1978, 227)
If they want to be in the United States, Franklin is saying, if they have
made the effort to come here and have settled here, this is evidence of
their desires to be American.
Jacobsohn similarly believes immigrants have come to America with
aspirations of political unity, not cultural unity. The grand purpose had
among the waves of immigrants who have come to America is to become
American citizens, not to abandon their cultural, religious, and ethnic
backgrounds (Jacobsohn, Jeffrey, and Dunn 1996, xv).
In the recent report entitled Legal Immigration: Setting Priorities
from the Congressional Bi-partisan Commission on Immigration Reform,
the commission wrote that religious and ethnic diversity are compatible
with national civic unity in a democratic and free society. Very
specifically they noted that, Religious and cultural diversity does not
pose a threat to the national interest as long as public policies ensure civic
unity (U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 1995, xxxi).
The connection, then, between an immigrants loyalty to his native
culture and disloyalty to the United States, is at best very weak. Although
the level of an immigrants political allegiance to native homeland might
be worth questioning if perhaps there was armed conflict with an
immigrants country of origin, there is insufficient connection between
attachment to native culture and political allegiance to native homeland to
justify making loyalty to native culture a reason for excluding someone
56 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


from being considered an American.
30
As observed by Gans, the cultural
identification of immigrants with their countries of origin is more likely
than not symbolic in nature, rather than political (Gans 1979) .
Even dismissing the threat of diminished political loyalty toward the
U.S. resulting from a recent immigrants continued attachment to their
native cultures, some are distressed at the infusion of foreign culture
brought by waves of immigrants, and they fear its effects upon American
culture (as if American culture were homogenous). For example, as noted
above, McDonnell fears that the new immigrants are deforming America.
This concern is not shared by all, however. Both Clyde Kluckhohn in
1958 and Seymour Martin Lipset in 1963 concluded that there is more
continuity than change with respect to the main elements in the national
value system (Huntington 1981, 21). Further, America does not consist
of a homogeneous culture, nor are there single cultures within most
countries on the globe. Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky observe in their
book Cultural Theory that competing ways of life exist within any
single nation (Thompson et.al. 1990, 215). Gordon, in explaining the
existence of multiple cultures within one national society, explains that we
exist within several concentric circles of social interaction. Our ethnic or
cultural identity exists within one circle, but this circle does not
necessarily interfere with our sharing political participation, occupational
relationships, common civic enterprise, perhaps even an occasional warm
friendship (Gordon 1964, 29) with those outside our circle living in
circles of their own. Everyone exists within some type of circle. Even the
Anglo-American, the archetypal American, from whom most of the
protest regarding ethnic/cultural identity has come, inhabit such groups.
As Gordon notes, however the white Protestant American, is rarely
conscious of the fact that he inhabits a group at all. He inhabits America.
The others live in groups. One is reminded of the wryly perceptive
comment that the fish never discovers water (ibid., 5).
Benefits from Maintaining Ethnic/Cultural Links
In contradistinction to considering the maintenance of cultural links by
recent immigrants a threat, several scholars contend cultural maintenance
may actually provide benefits not only to the immigrants, but to the nation
as well. One benefit cited by Michael Novak in regard to the immigrants
from eastern and southern Europe was that by remaining as groups,
What is an American 57




immigrants maintain a vital sense of family and community which in his
opinion are worth nurturing (Novak 1973).
Ungar in his work Fresh Blood: The New American Immigrants,
concurs with Novak. He not only dismisses the use of ethnicity, race, and
culture as reasons to be suspicious of new immigrants, but he also believes
the new immigrants are of benefit to America. Ungar writes:
In an era of crass materialism and widespread, growing
cynicism, immigrants help renew, enrich, and
rediscover the values of America [the immigrants]
remind us of ideals to often forgotten, except in empty
political dialogue, in America today: the value of
family, respect and care for our elders, kindness and
compassion for a larger community of interest. (Ungar
1995, 368)
Ungar goes on to state that the only reason for opposing immigration
is racism of one form or another (ibid.).
The sense of community mentioned by Novak and Ungar brings
about another benefit which at first glance appears to be counterintuitive,
that being that loyalty to native culture may ultimately assist the
immigrant to assimilate into American society. The self-contained
communal life of the immigrant colonies, suggests Gordon, served as a
kind of decompression chamber in which the newcomers could, at their
own pace, make a reasonable adjustment to the new forces of a society
vastly different from that which they had known in the Old World
(Gordon 1964, 106). That such enclaves should develop was only natural
according to Hartman. Challenged by a new language, surroundings, and
missing his native environment, an immigrant found in an ethnic or
cultural enclave, security, safety, and advice from those who had arrived
before (Hartman 1967, 16).
Fuchs agrees noting:
Immigrants of different backgrounds found it was to
their advantage to establish a new identity as ethnic-
Americans . . . . The process of reconfiguring their
ancestral identity was one other groups would go
through, too, including various Filipino and Chinese
58 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


dialect groups, Italian paisani, and Jews from many
national backgrounds. For all of them, the
reconfiguration of identity became and still is a
mechanism for bridging differences and enlarging
common interests and habits. It was and is also a way
of gaining protection against the surprises and dangers
of the new environment, and of making claims within
it. (Fuchs 1990, 22)
The benefits of a safe landing zone and stepped assimilation into the
mainstream of American society are particularly noteworthy in light of
observations such as those of Portes and Zhou who raise the concern that
too rapid an assimilation may mean immigrants assimilate not into the
American mainstream, but rather into the values and norms of the inner
city (Portes and Zhou 1994, 21).
I have personally witnessed this phenomenon. In 1996, while
conducting interviews in the Tongan community in and around the San
Francisco Bay area, I had become accustomed to speaking with recent
Tongan immigrants whose English still carried the strong influence of
their native tongue. Toward the end of a rigorous schedule of interviews
over the course of four days, I was astounded when I encountered a group
of youth whose English was as strongly accented as that of their parents,
but which accent and verbiage was influenced not by their native Tongan
homeland, but rather by the Black English spoken in the Oakland
community where they lived. These youth had assimilated into the local
culture, but the local culture into which they had assimilated was not the
broader mainstream American culture but rather the local Black culture.
Another benefit of immigrants maintaining some of their native
culture as proposed by Kallen, and supported by Gordon, is that
immigrants make the national culture richer and more varied (Gordon
1964, 147). Brewer also concurs, stating:
To mingle these heterogeneous elements in one
homogeneous American people, and to so mingle that
the good qualities of each shall be preserved and the
bad qualities of each cast out is one of the great tasks of
the American people. (Brewer 1902, 25-26)
What is an American 59




Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his book American Enterprise believes we
can create new improved American cultural values, by adding voices to
the [American] story as they were added to the nation (Gates 1995, 49).
The nation need not be culturally homogeneous. Gordon and Kallen both
envision the possibility of a nation with a common language, but with
perhaps each group having a different dialect, esthetic, or intellectual form
(Gordon 1964, 143; Kallen 1924, 124).
Beyond only being acceptable, some scholars believe there is an
actual expectation for some connectedness to immigrant culture. Waters
writes:
The expectation in American society that everyone has
an ethnic identity in addition to being American is often
institutionalized in elementary school projects where
children are given the assignment of researching their
roots. (Waters 1990, 59)
John Dewey had similar beliefs which he expressed when he stated
that the genuine American is, in fact, a hyphenated character. An
American is not American and Polish or American and Mexican, but in
being American he is Pole-German-English-French-Spanish-Italian-
Greek-Irish-Scandinavian-Bohemian-Jew etc. (Dewey 1916, 185-6).
Stanley Lieberson (Lieberson 1985, 177) found that it was in fact the
poorly educated southern rural whites who were most likely to be
unhyphenated whites people unable or unwilling to name any
specific ancestry. Tom W. Smith also found a correlation between
individuals not identifying with an ethnicity, and low education (Smith
1980, 86). Gordons statements perhaps summarize the feelings of these
scholars best when he suggests we should view immigrant enclaves and
heritage and as a magnificent opportunity, not an occasion for despair
(Gordon 1964, 141).
Problems in Using Ethnicity, Race, and Culture as Qualifying
Criteria: A Summary
In this discussion I have examined the shortcomings of using the
ascriptive criteria of ethnicity, race, and culture, as criteria for determining
who can be called American. The conceptual problems with using these
60 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


criteria have been outlined; Supreme Court cases ruling on the
unconstitutionality of these criteria have been cited; and even the benefits
of native culture maintenance have been discussed. As a result of these
examinations, it can be concluded that ethnicity, race, and culture, are
neither adequate nor appropriate criteria for determining who can be
called American.
Having eliminated these three factors from consideration, we can now
begin to develop a minimum set of criteria of what it means to be
American. Rather than being based on criteria which would have required
the genetically impossible (all immigrants being transformed into Anglo-
Saxons), or the abandonment of native culture, the criteria which we can
now search out will be based upon the political principles, obligations,
beliefs, and behaviors, which make Americans Americans.
The Criteria for Being American
If the ascriptive criteria of ethnicity, race, and culture are not useful and
are no longer legal in identifying who is an American, what criteria can be
used? Kymlicka is in effect posing this question when he asks, what will
bind people together when they come from such different backgrounds,
including every conceivable race, religion, language group sharing
virtually nothing in common? (Kymlicka 1995, 61). Rephrased, the
question could be asked, if race, ethnicity, and culture are not used, what
criteria can be used to examine how American someone is?
In this book thus far, several of the individuals quoted have expressed
belief in the existence of a set of ideals or behaviors which they
interpreted as the essence of being American. It does appear that
throughout most of American history, there has been the assumption that
such criteria exists, and that the nation could be built on that criteria rather
than upon ethnicity, race, or culture. Often, authors demonstrate the
existence of a set of American ideals or behaviors by juxtaposing the
beliefs of immigrants with the beliefs of true Americans. Bridges, for
example, expresses concern that if immigrants maintain their native
cultures and languages they will dissociate from their minds the life and
ideals of the [American] nation (Bridges 1919, 123-124). In this
statement Bridges is implicitly expressing his belief in the existence of a
particular way of life and certain ideals that are American in nature.
What is an American 61




Bridges made his statement at the beginning of the 20
th
century,
during the height of the Americanization movement. This movement
had as its goal making good americans out of the large numbers of
immigrants arriving in the United States during the late 1800s and early
1900s. During this time period, the Sons of the American Revolution
published a bulletin which contained the following statement:
The immigrants of today may be the good Americans
of tomorrow, if they are made to know their privileges
and their duties in their adopted country. (Sons of the
American Revolution 1911, 2)
The Sons of the American Revolution expressed a belief that with
proper education and inculcation in the privileges and duties of
Americans, immigrants then arriving on the American shores could be
made into good Americans. It should be remembered that the
immigrants of this time were coming not from northern Europe, but rather
from southern and eastern Europe. The expectation that proper education
in the privileges and duties of being American could transform the new
immigrants into the good Americans of tomorrow clearly looked
beyond the ascriptive criteria for being an American discussed earlier in
this chapter. Instead the focus was upon some set of privileges the
immigrant must recognize and duties immigrants must learn as the criteria
for becoming good Americans.
More recently Huntington, to some extent echoing the
recommendation of the Sons of the American Revolution, proposed that
one way in which immigrants may become fully American is by
accepting and identifying with American social, economic, and political
values and institutions (Huntington 1981, 27). These criteria constitute
what Huntington refers to as an American creed, or an American ideology.
Huntington, in fact, believes there is little reason to disagree about the
existence of an American Creed. However, Huntington raises a
different issue. He argues that although there is little disagreement
regarding the existence of an American creed, its specific definition is
elusive. Huntington observes that:
People have been attempting to define American
national identity or national character ever since
national consciousness first emerged in the eighteenth
62 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


century. Personality traits, social characteristics,
geographic and environmental features, behavioral
patterns, and historical experiences have all been
invoked by one analyst or another. (Ibid., 13)
To develop the absolute definition of the American creed or the
American national identity is beyond the scope of this examination. The
objective here, as expressed at the beginning of this chapter, is to develop
criteria which make up a minimum threshold of what it means to be an
American. Having dismissed ascriptive criteria for determining who is
American, but assuming, as Huntington, Bridges, and others suggest, that
there exist a set of core duties, values, beliefs, or behaviors which
constitute being American, the task now is to discover and enumerate
what those core duties, values, beliefs, and behaviors are.
In relationship to immigrants, the most common mentioned duties,
values, beliefs, or behaviors mentioned in academic and political
discussions can be subdivided into two major categories. These are:
1. belief in the American system of government, and
2. living a moral, civic life, which consists of three dimensions:
participating in voluntary organizations for the good of
the community,
participating in the political/electoral process, and
learning English sufficient to be able to participate in the
political process.
I will now discuss each one of these categories.
Belief in the American System of Government
As noted above, for most nations, national identity is based upon a long
process of historical evolution involving common ancestors, common
experiences, common ethnic background, common language, common
culture, and usually common religion (ibid., 23). This is not the case in
What is an American 63




the United States. As observed by Walzer, cited previously, there never
was a group of people called Americans who came together and formed a
society called America (Walzer 1990, 595). Americans are Americans by
virtue of believing in certain political principles and by coming together in
political union based upon those principles.
Petersen advances this line of thought in his work Ethnicity Counts.
Petersen proposes that because Americans lack a natural unity based on
biology or a common history they sought their tradition elsewhere.
Quoting historian George Bancroft (1800-1891), Peterson writes that
Americans, seized as their particular inheritance the tradition of liberty
(Petersen 1997, 52). Americans have come to rely upon political
principles, and, most importantly, on their tradition of liberty as unifying
factors to bind them together as a people and a nation. Huntington
comments on the unique importance of political principles in defining
who is an American when he observes that in other countries one can
abrogate the constitution without abrogating the nation. This is certainly
the case with Germany where German peoplehood exists independent of
the existence of a particular form of German government. Americans,
however, are Americans because of the existence of the Constitution, the
political principles there embodied, and the resulting nation it created
(Huntington 1981, 30).
This political foundation to American peoplehood has given
Americans, from very early in their history, a peculiar political manner of
being. Carlson notes this when he writes that Americans have a Civic
Religion that all those who wish to be American must conform to
(Carlson 1987, 56). Carlson is echoing the observations of Francis Grund
written in his book The Americans. In 1837 Grund wrote that the political
doctrines of America were the religion and the confession of the people .
. . . (Grund 1837, 149-50). Grund emphasized this point by writing:
It was the genius of liberty which gave America a
national elevation . . . It is the bond of union, the
confession, the religion, the life of Americans; it is that
which distinguished them above all other nations in the
world. (Ibid., 107)
64 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


By using terms such as, the religion and the confession of the
people, Grund is saying that the cultural fabric which holds other peoples
together, is among Americans replaced by the belief and practice of
certain political doctrines; specifically those political doctrines
surrounding liberty.
Francis Wright also noted the importance of the belief and practice of
certain political doctrines in defining who was an American. They are
Americans, Wright declared who, having complied with the
Constitutional regulations of the United States . . . wed the principles of
Americas Declaration to their hearts and render the duties of American
citizens practically in their lives (Fuchs 1990, 21). Fuchs, interpreting
Tocqueville, observes that Tocqueville had discovered that, what
distinguished the American national spirit, character, and identity was not
sectarian religion or ancestry but a culture of politics (ibid.).
Abraham Lincoln also viewed the belief in American political
principles not only as something that immigrants needed to acquire, but
also as something that would transform the immigrants themselves.
Observing in 1860 that the largest group of immigrants at the time were
German and could not identify with the Revolutionary War, Lincoln
expressed the opinion that they could nevertheless identify personally with
America because:
. . . when they look through that old Declaration of
Independence, they find that those old men say that we
hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are
created equal, and then they feel . . . that they have a
right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood
and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote the
Declaration of Independence. (Eastland 1979, 53)
The belief in those principles expressed in the Declaration of
Independence, Lincoln is saying, would make Americans of immigrants
just as much as if in their veins ran full with the inherited blood of the
founding fathers.
What is an American 65




This line of thought, that allegiance to political principles is what
changes immigrants into Americans, was reiterated in the early 1900s in
President Woodrow Wilsons comments to a group of newly naturalized
citizens. He followed this theme of allegiance to political principles being
critical to making immigrants American when he commented on the
naturalization oath itself. He observed that the new immigrants had sworn
allegiance to a great ideal, to a great body of principles . . . (Harrington
1980, 678).
The uniqueness of having the system of government being a unifying
factor and a primary component of national identity is discussed in the
writings of Almond and Verba. As they report in their book The Civic
Culture, when respondents were asked what they were most proud of with
respect to their countries, approximately 85% of American mentioned
some aspect of their political tradition, the American political tradition.
When the same question was asked of citizens of other countries, the
results were markedly different. Only 46% of British, 30% of Mexican,
7% of German, or 3 % of Italian respondents made mention of their
political traditions. (Almond and Verba 1965, 64-65).
31

To be an American, then, means to believe in the American system or
culture of governance. But can we even further define what this means?
Huntington believes the most often cited values of American political
system to be support for liberty, democracy, majority rule, minority
rights, freedom of speech and religion, and equality (Huntington 1981,
18).
32

Fuchs writes that from early in American history:
. . . spokesmen for the new American nation explained
that the U.S. was created by God as an asylum in which
liberty, opportunity, and reward for achievement
[emphasis in original] would prosper. (Fuchs 1990, 2)
Liberty, according to Fuchs, was not merely believed in as a national
political principle, but as a governing principle which was of divine
mandate. He continues by observing that this belief in a divine nature and
purpose for the United States became the foundation of American political
66 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


culture, and encouraged the uniting of Americans from different religious
and national backgrounds, into one nation (ibid.).
Understanding and believing in liberty as a political concept before
one could become an American is a qualification that has been supported
since the earliest days of this nation. This support is evidenced in
comments from members of Congress early in the existence of the Union.
Representative Theodore Sedgewick of Massachusetts (1796-1799)
expressed the concern that some immigrants having been subjects of
despotic, monarchical, and aristocratical governments would be allowed
as soon as they set foot on American ground . . . to participate in
administering the sovereignty of our country. (U.S. Congress, House
1794, 1006). He did not feel they would be prepared for such a duty.
Representative Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania (1789-1800) similarly
expressed his concern about granting to immigrants the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship before sufficient time had passed for them to
have, an opportunity of esteeming the government from knowing its
intrinsic value (U.S. Congress, House 1790, 1109). By government he
specifically meant the type of government had in the United States:
American Democracy. Representative Michael Stone of Maryland (1789-
1791), also wanted a longer waiting period before immigrants could apply
for naturalization; one long enough to guarantee that immigrants would
have acquired a taste for this kind of government (ibid., 1118). A belief
in or taste for liberty and the American form of government was requisite
for immigrants to acquire, in the minds of these early Congressmen,
before qualifying to be American.
It is clear then, that from its inception, the Americans have viewed
themselves as believing in a unique set of political principles most often
including belief in and support of liberty, democracy, majority rule,
minority rights, and freedom of speech and religion. As expressed by the
scholars and political figures cited above, belief in these political
principles is one of the principal characteristics of being an American.
Living a Moral, Civic Life
Beyond the belief in American political principles, several authors
propose that living a moral civic life is an important dimension of what it
means to be an American. Brewer for example, in his book American
What is an American 67




Citizenship, argued that high moral standards and good character were a
national duty. While never fully defining good character, Brewer does
include the ideals of truth, justice, honesty, and purity (Brewer 1902,
51).
33
Brewer goes on to write that Americans must lift their eyes above
the narrow horizon of their own convenience . . . and see that in the
performance of those duties they are doing their part in helping the nation
to its highest usefulness . . . (ibid., 70). The duty of a good American,
Brewer is saying, is to look beyond merely their own needs, and look to
the needs of the nation as a whole. The end result of doing this is a public
good: improvement to the general welfare of the nation.
Dahl believes that helping one another for the good of the nation
should be the motive for involvement in political life. The ideal society,
believes Dahl, would be one in which citizens engage in political life
with the primary goal of achieving the public good, or the general welfare,
or the good of all, or the public interest (Dahl 1996, 1). This is what
Dahl refers to as civic virtue. Although this is what Dahl views as the
ideal situation, he does not really believe it possible to achieve this state in
a large diverse democracy. Specifically he notes that a society ruled by
civic virtue would require,
a body of people so homogeneous in their conceptions of
their interests that sharply conflicting and partial views
of the public good would not arise, or if they did would

be quickly and overwhelmingly dismissed by a
preponderant majority of citizens. (Ibid. 4)
Where such homogeneity does not exist, Dahls concern, as noted
previously, is that society will be based upon hyper-egoism with an
individuals concern for himself, or for the subgroup of society to which
he belongs, taking precedence over cooperation and concern for society as
a whole. Dahl gives as examples the societies as proposed by
Thrasymachus in Platos Republic, by Machiavelli in The Prince, or by
Hobbes in The Leviathan. Dahls solution is a society based upon what he
refers to as robust civility. Dahls robust civility is a compromise
between civic virtue and hyper-egoism. It needs less nobility
34
than civic
virtue requires, [yet] it provides more civility, decency, sympathy, and
generosity of spirit than can be found in the politics of hyper-egoism
68 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


observes Dahl (ibid. 11). Robust civility would allow for the expression
of individual sentiments and concerns, within the existence of a
heterogeneous polity, but a polity in which all the citizenry jointly search
for that which is of value to the larger community or the nation as a whole
(ibid. 13).
That an obligation exists for members of a society to seek to do that
which is of value to the larger society was a theme also addressed by T.H.
Marshall, in his book Class, Citizenship and Social Development. He
specifically enumerates promoting the welfare of the community as a
obligation critical to good citizenship (Marshall 1973, 93). Although
some might find the term obligation harsh or coercive, Janoski and
other scholars strongly believe obligations are absolutely needed. In his
book Citizenship and Civil Society, Janoski marvels in fact at the, chronic
avoidance of obligations. Janoski believes that, rights require
obligations for their fulfillment, since no right may exist without an
obligation to help make the right exist . . . (Janoski 2000, 53).
The broad statement that Americans should seek to do that which is
of value to the larger community seems to create great latitude, if not a
virtual total lack of definition, as to what obligations this might place on
an immigrant.
However, particularly when the discussion regarding new immigrants
are examined, many of the possible obligations appear to fall into the
following three categories;
1. participation in voluntary associations,
2. participation in the political/electoral process, and
3. learning English sufficient to be able to participate in the
political process.
We shall now turn our attention to each of these categories.

What is an American 69




Participation in Voluntary Associations
As noted above, Marshall proposed that promoting the welfare of the
community was an obligation of good citizenship. However, even by
Marshalls own admission, the goal of promoting the welfare of the
community was vague and ill-defined. Janowitz sought to more
specifically define this obligation by proposing that one manner in which
the welfare of the community can be promoted is by individuals
participating in voluntary associations, especially those which are
community based (Janowitz 1980, 16-17). James Sellers, in his book
Public Ethics: American Morals and Manners, similarly observes that the
spirit of citizenship in a republic requires citizens to take action,
especially that kind of action that expresses willingness: initiative
(Sellers 1970, 73). The citizens, or community residents, must of their
own accord be involved in the community.
Hardy-Fanta, among others, makes it clear that this type of action
need not be limited to those areas which are typically classified as
political. What is political? she inquires, then responds by observing
that in the case of Latina women, often their political actions take place as
a mobilizing force of community service within the Latino community
(Hardy-Fanta 1993, 15). Tilly and Gurin use the term protopolitics to
describe these political activities which are unmediated by
organization but rather are mediated by relationships (Tilly and Gurin
1990, 7). Redefining political participation to include community service
and community action is a critical clarification of the definition. Without
this clarification in the definition of what is political, certain populations,
such as Latina women, would be, according to Hardy-Fanta, politically
invisible, appearing not to be participants in the political process. In
reality, their involvement in building the community, in building America,
is significant.
Tocqueville similarly observed the importance of these non-political
associations in building America when he wrote:
The Americans make associations to give
entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to
construct churches, to diffuse books, to send
missionaries to the antipodes; they found in this manner
hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it be proposed to
70 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


inculcate some truth, or to foster some feeling by the
encouragement of a great example, they form a society.
Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you
see the government in France, or a man of rank in
England, in the United States you will be sure to find an
association. (Tocqueville 1984, 198)
Judith N. Shklar (1991), goes so far as to state that participation in
voluntary associations is more important than governing, voting, military
service, or paying taxes. Kymlicka and Norman in their article Return of
the Citizen observe that according to civil society theorists, it is through
churches, families, unions, ethnic associations, cooperative,
environmental groups, neighborhood associations, womens support
groups, charities, that the virtues of mutual obligation, are learned. It
is through participation in these organizations that one learns to become
and function as a good member of society (Kymlicka 1994, 364).
Participation, voluntary participation in community organizations, is a
way of both learning to be a good member of society and of showing civic
virtue. It is part of being a good American.
35

Robert Putnam in his article and then book of the same title, Bowling
Alone, has written on the decline of participation in all forms of social
association in America (Putnam 1995, Putnam 2000). Putnam bemoans
the decline in participation in clubs, civic organizations, religious groups,
and even bowling leagues. Putnam writes,
. . . most Americans no longer spend much time in
community organizations weve stopped doing
committee work, stopped serving as officers and
stopped going to meetings. (Putnam 2000, 63)
Putnam argues that this decline in participation, both in informal
social contacts and formal civic forums, damages the social
connectedness, the social capital of American society. Even if Putnam is
correct regarding the decline in participation in social organizations,
overall his writings support rather than diminish the argument presented
here regarding the importance of participation in voluntary associations.
Putnam is not challenging the importance of participating in voluntary
associations. He strongly supports such participation and in fact teaches
the existence of a societal need for this participation. Putnam fears the
What is an American 71




consequences of the decline in sociality and spends nearly a third of his
book describing the consequences and proposing solutions to recreate
social capital.
36
In sum, even if participation in voluntary associations is
presently in decline, it is still regarded as a virtue; it is still regarded as
something Americans should do.
Participation in the Political/Electoral Process
T. H. Marshall wrote, If citizenship is invoked in the defense of rights,
the corresponding duties of citizenship cannot be ignored (Marshall
1973, 123). Often spoken of as a right, it is often overlooked that voting
and participation in the electoral process is an obligation of citizenship
which builds and strengthens connections between an individual and the
broader community. Mary Ann Glendon writes of this in her book Rights
Talk. She finds it disquieting that the new generation places so much
emphasis on personal happiness while failing to perceive a need to
reciprocate by exercising the duties and responsibilities of good
citizenship (Glendon 1991, 128). Specifically, Glendon is amazed that
so few young people mention voting as one of the characteristics of good
citizenship.
Etzioni, in his book The Spirit of Community, who also matches rights
with responsibilities, specifically mentions participation in elections. He
writes:
Individuals rights are to be matched with social
responsibilities. If people want to be tried before juries
of their peers, they must be willing to serve on them. If
they want elected officials that respond to their values
and needs, they must involve themselves in the
primaries in which the candidates are chosen. (Etzioni
1993, 249)
Etzioni goes on to quote William F. Buckley as referring to the act of
voting as a civic sacrament (ibid., 141).
John F. Reynolds in his work Testing Democracy, also emphasizes
the importance of voting as a civic act and responsibility. He observes
that in the United States, we have defined voting as a civic function rather
than a partisan one, and that this is one of the unique and cardinal
features of the electoral system of the United States (Reynolds 1988.
72 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


173). Janoski in his chapter Reconstructing Obligations and Patriotism
lists 1) voting and participation in politics and 2) being informed and
exercising the franchise wisely, as two political obligations of citizenship
(Janoski 2000, 55).
Viewing participation in the electoral process as an obligation of
members of the American community is not a new concept. At the
beginning of the 20
th
century, during the Americanization movement,
writers often included voting among the responsibilities of citizenship. In
1924, the Hepners observed in their book The Good Citizen that Good
citizens take an active part in the election of public officials. They
specifically went on to state that voting for candidates for public office is
a right and a privilege of the highest order. Beyond being a privilege,
they reminded their readers, It is also a duty (Hepner 1924. 319). Mrs.
Reginald De Koven, in her work A Primer of Citizenship wrote that it was
the responsibility of good citizens to be voters who would choose good
officers to uphold laws that were just (De Koven 1923. 37). Broome in
1926 wrote in his work Conduct and Citizenship that voting is not only
the right but the duty of every good citizen (Broome 1926. 362).
In 1948, the American Heritage Foundation published a booklet
which detailed nine promises of a good citizen. Among these promises
were the promise to vote at all elections, and to inform oneself on the
candidates and issues . . . . (American Heritage Foundation 1948, 71).
The importance of participating in the political process is
dramatically underscored by the verbiage the Supreme Court has used
describing situations in which the opportunity to participate in the process
has been denied. For example, in the Supreme Court decision commonly
referred to as the The Ku Klux Cases 110 U.S. 651 (1884), the majority
opinion of the Court noted that the selection of the executive and
legislative branches were essential to the successful working of our
government, and labeled it a dangerous evil to try to unjustly control
access to the voting process [110 U.S. 651, 666-667]. In South Carolina
v. Katzenbach 383 U.S. 301 (1966) the court referred to unjust control
over who could vote as an insidious and pervasive evil [383 U.S. 301,
309]. The wording used by the Court in these decisions, is declaratory of
the essential role of voting and participation in the electoral process to the
successful working of government.
What is an American 73




Of course voting is not the only manner in which individuals can
participate in the political process. Other methods include:
working either for pay or as a volunteer for a party or
candidate for office; signing petitions relating to public
issues; attending public meetings or rallies in support of
a candidate; writing a letter, telephoning, or
telegraphing an editor or public official to express
concern about issues; wearing a campaign button or
displaying political materials on ones car or residence;
and contributing money to political causes. (Wrinkle
1996, 14)
Although voting in congressional or presidential elections is of course
limited to individuals who are citizens, volunteering for a party or
candidate, assisting in petition drives, attending public meetings or rallies,
etc., can be done by either citizens or non-citizens and therefore are
appropriate measures of participation which can be used in examining the
NLIS respondent population which consisted of both citizens and non-
citizens.

Learning English Sufficient to be Able to Participate in the Political
Process
Learning English has often been noted as one of those things immigrants
need to do to truly become American. Often, English has been included
as part of the curriculum inculcating new immigrants into the American
way of life. Hartman notes that in 1907, the YMCA taught English
language classes along with the requirements of naturalization, the nature
of American government, and something of the background of the new
country into which [the immigrant] had come (Hartman 1967, 28). At
about this same time period, Dr. R. DeWitt Mallary at the American
International College was also teaching recent immigrants English along
with American history and ideals, American government, patriotism,
sanitation, and personal hygiene (ibid. 30-31). The belief was that
learning English would result in the immigrant having a better overall
understanding of the American way of life and would eventually lead to
the immigrant incorporating the ideals and aspiration of native-born
Americans.
74 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


More recently, Gordon listed language, along with social rituals, as
qualities immigrants must obtain to be considered American (Gordon
1964, 63). Bellah argues that the erosion of a common language, is a
symptom of the erosion of common meaning, in society (Bellah 1975, x).
Thus, Bellah would argue, it is important for immigrants to learn English
in order for them to maintain (and by implication understand) the
common meaning in American society. Glazer agrees with Bellah and
also links the adoption of English by new immigrants with the learning of
American political principles (Glazer 1996, 87).
In contrast to the perceived unity engendered by immigrants adopting
English, Citrin, Hass, Muste, and Reingold note, in their article Is
American Nationalism Changing?, that the demand for linguistic
diversity on the part of current immigrants has sparked insecurity about
national cohesion and fostered a movement to designate English as the
Official language of the United States (Critin, et.al. 1994, 19). Whether
an immigrants failure to learn English would in fact hamper him from
feeling more American is not the principal issue that Citirin, et. al., are
raising here. Their point is that other Americans perceive immigrants to
be less American if they do not learn English. As an expression of this
view, Citrin, et. al., cite a February 1988 California Poll in which 60% of
the respondents opposed the principle underlying the bilingual ballots
mandated by law and agreed that citizens who cant read English
shouldnt be allowed to vote (ibid.). What the respondents here appeared
to be expressing was their opinion that knowledge of English, at least
sufficient to complete a ballot, was a minimum criteria they expected of
individuals who sought to participate politically in that manner.
The decision to include the ability to speak English as an obligation
of being a true American for the purposes of the analysis conducted
here is strengthened by the results to questions asked in the National
Election Study (NES) and the General Social Survey (GSS) in recent
surveys. In 1992, the National Election Study (NES) included the
question:
Some people say that there are certain qualities that
make a person a true American. Others say that there
isn't anything that makes one person more American
than another. I'm going to read some of the things that
What is an American 75




have been mentioned. For each of the following, tell me
how important you think it is in making someone a true
American -- extremely important, very (important),
somewhat (important), or not at all important.
One of the items mentioned was Speaking English. The response
frequencies to this item are reported in table 2.
Table 2. How Important is Speaking English to
Making Someone a True American.
Extremely important 688 30%
Very important 845 37%
Somewhat important 541 23%
Not at All important 221 10%
Dont know 9 < 1%
No answer 9 < 1%
Total 2313 100%
(National Election Studies 1992)
This same issue was raised in the 1996 GSS. The question there was:
Some people say the following things are important for
being truly American. Others say they are not
important. How important do you think each of the
following is . . . To be able to speak English?
As reported in table 3, 70% of respondents rated being able to speak
English as very important.
37


76 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Table 3. How Important is Being Able to Speak
English to Being Truly American.
1996
Very important 956 70%
Fairly important 290 21%
Not very important 69 5%
Not important at all 25 2%
Cant choose 11 1%
No answer 16 1%
Total 1367 100%
(General Social Survey 1996)
In 1992, 1996, and 1998, the NES and GSS alternated in asking a
question regarding making English the official language of the United
States. The question posed to respondents was:
Do you FAVOR a law making English the official
language of the United States, meaning government

business would be conducted in English only, or do you
OPPOSE such a law?
As table 4 displays, the percent of respondents who favored making
English the official language of the U.S. has increased modestly between
the two NES surveys from 63% in 1992 to 67% in 1998 with little change
between 1990 and 2000.
38



What is an American 77




Table 4. Percent of Respondents who Favored Making English
Official Language of the United States.
1992 NES 1994 GSS 1998 NES 2000 NES
Favor 1419 63% 890 60% 853 67% 1202 67%
Neither 154 7% 137 9% 70 5% 130 7%
Oppose 627 28% 391 27% 353 28% 446 25%
DK 47 2% 50 3% 4 <1% 24 1%
NA 8 <1% 6 <1% 1 <1% 2 <1%
Total 2255 100 1474 100 1281 100 1804 100
(General Social Survey 1996, National Election Studies 2000)
The 2000 GSS also asked respondents whether they agreed or
disagreed that Speaking English as the common national language is
what unites all Americans. The results illustrated in table 5 below show
overwhelming support for this proposition.







78 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Table 5. Speaking English as a Common National
Language is what Unites Americans.
2000
Strongly Agree 354 25%
Agree 670 48%
Disagree 285 20%
Strongly Disagree 37 3%
DK 45 3%
NA 7 1%
Total 1,398 100%
(General Social Survey 2000)
Certainly these few questions on these two topics are only simple
measures for a complicated issue and should not be considered the final
statements on this question. However, given that the majority of the
respondents in both the GSS and the NES, felt that being able to speak
English was a criterion of being truly American, and they favored English
as the official language for conducting government business, it does
appear that an expectation is being expressed. The GSS and NES
respondents appear to be expressing an expectation that those individuals
who wish to interact with the government should be able to do so in
English. The respondents in these surveys seem to be saying that some
level of English competency is a legitimate requirement for those who
would function in the American system, or in other words, for those who
wish to be considered fully or truly Americans.

What is an American 79




Conclusion
America is a nation which as been built through immigration. Through
the course of its history, however, America has struggled with the
question of just what it means to be an American. At different times,
different standards have been used to determine who qualified as truly
American. Throughout most of its existence, the ascriptive criteria of
ethnicity, race, and culture have been used to judge whether individuals
would be considered truly and fully American. In contradistinction,
America has also historically had a strong liberal and inclusive approach
which eschewed ascriptive criteria for defining who is an American.
Although this tension has existed for all of Americas history, since the
Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Supreme Court
decisions have increasingly supported the non-ascriptive, more inclusive
approach to defining who is an American. Today, as a result of Supreme
Court decisions, ethnicity, race, and culture can no longer be used as
defining criteria for who is an American.
What has remained constant throughout Americas history is a belief
that affirmation, loyalty, and adherence to certain political principles,
obligations, beliefs, and behaviors is what makes an American an
American. Particularly noteworthy in discussions regarding the
obligations of Americans, especially new immigrants becoming
Americans, are two principal obligations. These are:
1. having a belief in the American system of government as
demonstrated by belief in the American style of republican
democracy, and belief in the American notions of equality
and self rule, and
2. living a moral civic life, specifically by
a. promoting the welfare of the community especially
through volunteerism and participation in
voluntary organizations for the good of the
community,
b. participation in the political/electoral process, and
80 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


c. learning English sufficient to be able to participate
in the political process.
39

Having developed these minimum criteria of what it means to be an
American, the next step is to operationalize these criteria using questions
from the NLIS. With the criteria operationalized, we can then examine
the two groups of respondents in the NLIS study, those who saw
themselves as Americans and those who saw themselves as members of
their home country, to determine if one group is really more American,
than the other.

81
CHAPTER 3

Logistic Examination of the
Allegiance Variable









Through the discussion in the previous chapter, four criteria were
developed to create a minimum definition of what it means to be
American. Those four criteria were 1) belief in the American system of
government, 2) participating in voluntary organizations, 3) participation in
the political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient to be able
to participate in the political process.
The question before us now is as follows: are these criteria of being
American predictive of national self-identification (American or country
of origin) among National Latino Immigrant Survey (NLIS) respondents?
This is to say, if we operationalize the criteria developed in the previous
chapter using variables from the NLIS, would those variables be
predictive of whether NLIS respondents identified themselves as
Americans or as a member of their countries of origin?
The objective of this chapter will be to answer this question using the
twofold approach of first operationalizing the four criteria using variables
from the NLIS, and second conducting a logistic regression using the
national self-identification variable from the NLIS as the dependent
variable, and the items used to operationalize the four criteria as the
independent variables.
82 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


The results of the logistic regression analysis will show how well
these variables predict whether a respondent identifies as an American or
with his country of origin. The hypothesis proposed at the beginning of
this paper was that respondents statements of national self-identification
were not political, and hence there would likely be no connection between
an operationalized definition of being American and a respondents
national self-identification. If the four criteria are not predictive of
national self-identification, this would support the hypothesis that the
statements of national self-identification are not political in nature.
Although the national self-identification question was not the primary
focus of the NLIS, the NLIS data is nevertheless useful for several
reasons. First, the sample drawn for the NLIS was a national sample with
appropriate representation from the different Hispanic sub-populations.
Second, as noted in the introductory chapter, the sample was drawn
specifically of legal immigrants who had been in the U.S. five or more
years, thus being qualified to apply for citizenship. Lastly, and also noted
in the introductory chapter, the question of national self-identification is
specifically asked in the NLIS.
This chapter will proceed by examining the four criteria raised in
chapter two in the following order:
first, participation in voluntary organizations,
second, participation in the political/electoral process,
third, learning English, and
lastly, belief in the American system of government
This order was selected so as to examine the criteria from least
complex to most complex. Each criterion will be developed in turn by:
first reviewing the questionnaire items from the NLIS which
relate to each criterion, and
second, developing scaled items as necessary for each of
these points.
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 83


After this development, a logistic regression model will be run with
the national self-identification variable as the dependent.
NLIS Variables Matched to Criteria for Being an American

Participation in Voluntary Organizations
The literature review in chapter 2 uncovered the importance placed by
many writers and scholars on participating in voluntary organizations as
part of being American. The NLIS asked respondents regarding their
participation in nine different types of organizations. They were asked
whether they were members of a:
church,
labor union,
PTA,
sports club,
senior citizens club,
fraternal order, such as the Masons,
political organization,
social club, or
social club whose members are mostly of the respondents
home country.
A summary variable for participation in voluntary organizations was
created by summing the number organizations in which a respondent
claimed membership.


84 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Participation in the Political Process
Participation in the political process was another point identified as a key
component to being American. The NLIS has two sets of items which
apply to this point. The first set of items addressed the respondents
participation in a variety of political activities; the second set of items
addressed the respondents participation in a variety of elections.

Political Participation
The first set of items, which shall be referred to as political participation,
focus on participation in the political process in ways other than voting.
These items asked respondents whether they had ever participated
politically in the United States by:
! following politics in the news,
! writing letters,
! distributing leaflets,
! canvassing or marching,
! attending fund raisers, or contributing money, or
! helping people register or vote.
As with memberships in community organizations, a summary
variable was created by adding together the number of activities in which
each respondent participated.

Voting
The second set of variables concerning political participation are those
which deal specifically with registering to vote and actually voting.


Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 85


Respondents were asked if they:
! were registered to vote,
! had voted in the 1984 presidential election,
! had voted in the last state election,
! had voted in the last local election, or
! had voted in the last school board election.
The summary variable here was created by giving respondents one
point if they were registered to vote, and an additional point for each
election in which they had voted.

Learning English
The NLIS asked a total of 8 questions regarding the respondents ability
and use of English . Because language ability and language preference are
different concepts, the NLIS asked a set of questions addressing each
concept. It is also appropriate to analyze their impact on national self-
identification separately.

Language Ability
The NLIS asked respondents 4 questions regarding their English language
proficiency. These questions asked respondents to self-assess their ability
to:
! understand spoken English,
! speak English,
! write English, and
! read English.
86 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Respondents could answer that they performed these tasks very
well, well, not well, or not at all.
In order to develop a composite score to assess a respondents
English language ability, respondents were given positive or negative
points depending on their responses to each item. A respondent received:
! 2 points for an answer of very well,
! 1 point for an answer of well,
! -1 points for a response of not well, and
! -2 points for an answer of not at all.
Thus, if a respondent indicated they 1) understood, 2) spoke, 3)
wrote, and 4) read English very well, they would receive a composite
score of 8. Conversely, if they indicated they did not do any of these
things at all, they would receive a score of -8.

Language Preference
The NLIS also asked four questions dealing with language preference of
the respondents. They were asked:
! what language they spoke at home,
! in which language they read the newspaper,
! in which language they listened to the radio, and
! in which language they watched television.
Response categories for each question were English, both, or Spanish.
Additionally, for the questions regarding reading the newspaper, listening
to the radio, or watching television, the respondents could answer that
they did not participate in that particular activity. In creating a composite
score for the criterion, respondents were given a score of:
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 87


1 for each answer of English,
0 for each answer where the respondent indicated they used
both English and Spanish, or where they indicated they did
not participate in that activity, and
-1 for each answer of Spanish.
40

Thus, a respondent could receive a maximum score of 4 if they
responded that they used English in all four settings. Conversely, a
respondent would receive a score of -4 if they replied that they used
principally Spanish for all of these activities.

Belief in the American System of Government
In seeking to operationalize the concept of belief in the American system
of government, it quickly became apparent this concept would be the most
complex to describe from the NLIS data. Unlike the other measures
developed above, (participation in community organizations, political
participation, voting, language ability, and language preference) the NLIS
had no clear set of variables designed to measure belief in the American
system of government. However, several questions and groups of
questions were included in the NLIS which can be used to show the
respondents familiarity with the American government, and their desire
to be part of the American system. Further, some questions inquire about
actions respondents may have taken to become part of the American
system. Taken together, these variables provide as reasonable an
approximation of belief in the American system of government as can be
derived from the NLIS data.
Below is a listing of the variables in their different groupings which
will be used to operationalize this concept.






88 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Familiarity with American Government
Although certainly not as exact a measure, the NLIS respondents
familiarity with or attention to American politics can be tested by using
two variables. These are:
being able to correctly give the name of the Vice President,
and
Being able to correctly give the name of the governor of their
state.
These two variables were grouped together into a single scale which
for the sake of convenience will be referred to as knowledge of
government, with the respondent receiving a score of 2 if they responded
correctly to each item, a 1 if they responded correctly to only 1 item, and a
0 if they gave no correct response.

A Desire to Be Part of the American System
Three questions fell into this category, and were amenable to grouping
into a summary variable. These questions were:
how important was it to the respondent to become a citizen,
how important were the following reasons for becoming
citizens:
citizenship allowing them to vote in U.S. elections, and
citizenship allowing them to participate more equally in
American life.
These three questions were already similarly scaled, which allowed
them to be combined into a summary variable in which they received 4
points for each item if they answered very important, 3 points if they
answered somewhat important, 2 points if they answered not very
important, and 1 point if they answered not at all important. Thus a
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 89


respondent could receive a maximum score of 12 if they responded very
important to all three of the above questions.

Reasons for Not Becoming a Citizen
Interestingly, the NLIS included a series of questions asking how
important certain reasons were for not becoming a citizen. Three of these
items lent themselves for inclusion in this study. These items were:
they wanted to maintain political ties with their home
country,
they would feel disloyal to their home country, and
they saw no real benefits to becoming citizens.
Because these questions address very different reasons for not
wanting to obtain U.S. citizenship it was important to assure that they
were in fact measuring the same attitude. This was done by conducting a
reliability analysis and obtaining a Cronbachs alpha score. Cronbachs
Alpha essentially indicates how well a set of variables measure a single
unidimensional latent construct (UCLA Academic Technology Services
2000). The Cronbach alpha score of .8466 indicates that the three
variables are clearly measuring the same attitude.
As with the three variables above, respondents were given between 1
and 4 points for each item, depending on their answers.
41
One point was
given for a response of not at all important, and 4 points were given for
a response of very important.

Actions Taken to Become Part of the American System
Three questions from the NLIS are used to operationalize this topic. The
first question was whether the respondent had ever sought to obtain an
application for citizenship. Respondents were given a score of 1 if they
had ever sought to obtain an application for citizenship, or they were
given a score of 0 otherwise.
90 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


The other two questions that fall into this category of taking actions to
become part of the American System are:
whether the respondent had studied English since coming to
the United States, and
whether the respondent has ever studied U.S. history or
government since coming to the United States.
These two questions were grouped into a single summary variable in
which the respondent receiving a score of 2 if they answered they had
studied both English and U.S. history/government, a score of 1 if they had
studied only one or the other, and a 0 if they had studied neither.

Summary: Belief in the American System of Government
These five variables, knowledge of government, importance of
citizenship, reasons for not getting citizenship, getting an application for
citizenship, and studying for citizenship were selected to be used together
to operationalize belief in the American system of government. As noted
above, and as is clear from our discussion thus far, these concepts are
coming from several different sections within the NLIS. Since these
questions are not coming from sets of questions that were designed to
work together, such as the language ability or language preference
variables previously described in this chapter, a legitimate question to ask
is whether the variables selected to operationalize belief in the American
system of government truly group together. Two different tests were used
to examine how well these items group together. The first test was the
scale reliability test, Cronbach alpha. The Cronbach alpha score for the
five variables used for this concept was .3700. Although the value here is
not as high as it was for the variables measuring reasons for not being a
citizen cited above, it is nevertheless within an acceptable range.
An additional manner of showing that these items group together is
through the use of factor analysis. Placing these five variables in a factor
analysis yielded a single factor, indicating that they do group together. As
noted in table 5, the first factor accounts for 38.784% of the variance.

Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 91


Table 5. Factor Analysis Results

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction
Sums of Square Loadings
Com-
ponent
Total % of
Variance
Cum % Total % of
Variance
Cum%
1 1.939 38.784 38.784 1.939 38.784 38.784
2 .972 19.441 58.226
3 .848 16.967 75.193
4 .690 13.792 88.985
5 .551 11.015 100.000
The component matrix (see table 6) shows the factor loadings for
each of the five variables.
Table 6. Factor Loadings
Know Government Leaders .590
Importance of Citizenship .274
Reasons for not getting Citizenship -.705
Tried to Get Citizenship Application .748
Studied English or U.S. History/Government .677
The variable with the lowest factor loading is the summary variable
measuring the respondents answers regarding the importance of obtaining
citizenship. However, with a factor loading value of .274, it still merits
inclusion.
92 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


The results from both the reliability analysis and the factor analysis
indicate that although these variables came from different sections of the
NLIS, they nevertheless do group together and, therefore, can be used as a
group to operationalize belief in the American system of government as
described above.
Control Variables
Beyond using the variables described above, it is appropriate to use a
series of control variables for different demographic characteristics of the
NLIS respondent population. Among the variables available in the NLIS
that can appropriately serve as control variables are:
gender,
age,
the number of years the respondent has been in the U.S.,
whether or not the respondent is a citizen,
income, and
the number of years of education completed.
The Logistic Regression
Having operationalized the four criteria developed in the previous chapter
with items from the NLIS, we are ready to proceed to the logistic
regression. The advantage of using logistic regression for this analysis is
that it is specifically designed for the examination of dichotomous
dependant variables. Unlike linear regression which uses ordinary least
squares (OLS) to estimate regression coefficients, logistic regression uses
maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to calculate logit coefficients. In
OLS, the objective is to minimize the sum of squared distances between
the observed data and the predicted data. In MLE, the objective is to
maximize the log likelihood: a reflection of how likely it is (the odds) that
the observed values of the dependent variable can be predicted by the
observed values of the independent variables.
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 93


maximize the log likelihood: a reflection of how likely it is (the odds) that
the observed values of the dependent variable can be predicted by the
observed values of the independent variables.
With the independent variables constructed as described above, the
logistic regression equation was entered as follows:
National Self-Identification =
0
+
1
(Gender) +
2

(Age) +
3
(Years in the U.S.) +
4
(Citizenship) +
5

(Income) +
6
(Education) +
7
(Importance of
Citizenship) +
8
(Tried to get Citizenship Application)
+
9
(Reasons for not becoming a Citizen) +
10

(Studied English, History/Government) +
11

(Memberships in Community Organizations) +
12

(Voting) +
13
(Political Participation) +
14
(English
Language Ability) +
15
(Language Preference)
Overall, the model was significant with a
2

22df
= 192.929 significant
at p = .0000. The model correctly predicted national self-identification in
68.07% of the cases. The model was somewhat more successful in
predicting when the respondents national self-identification was their
country of origin (72.43%) than when the respondents national self-
identification was the U.S. (63.35%).
An alternate way of analyzing the models ability to predict the
dependant variable is to calculate the proportional reduction of error
(PRE) which provides an estimate of the amount of error recovered by the
model. Two measures of PRE are Lambda-p and Goodman/Kruskals
(G/K) Tau-c.
Lambda-p is an asymetrical measure which takes only the row
marginal of the non-modal category into account when measuring PRE. It
is therefore more sensitive to tables where the data is very unevenly
distributed. Goodman and Kurskals tau-c examines both the row and
column marginals in computing PRE and is hence somewhat more robust.
In this case both measures give similar approximations of PRE. The
Lambda-p value was .3353, and the G/K Tau-c value .3604.
94 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Table 7. Logistic Regression Results - Full Model
Variable Coefficient (S.E.)
Gender -.0688 (.1444)
Age -.0151 (.0062)**
Years in the U.S. .0297 (.0093)***
Citizenship .1406 (.3009)
Income
Income (1) -.4999 (.3430)
Income (2) -.3472 (.3050)
Income (3) -.5054 (.3049)
Income (4) -.4886 (.3388)
Income (5) -.5298 (.2874)
Income (6) -.3604 (.3115)
Income (7) -.1808 (.3481)
Education -.0273 (.0203)
Importance of Citizenship .2698 (.0480)***
Tried to get Citizenship Application .2668 (.1576)*
Reasons for not becoming a Citizen -.0510 (.0358)
Studied English, History, or Government -.0738 (.1016)
Knew Government Officials -.0923 (.1027)
Memberships in Community Organizations -.1084 (.0576)*
Voting .0446 (.0673)
Political Participation -.0618 (.0743)
English Language Ability .0096 (.0224)
Language Preference .2353 (.0403)***
Constant -1.9475 (.7409)
Number of Cases 1068
Percent Predicted Correctly 68.07%
Proportional Reduction of Error
Lambda-p .3353
G-K Tau-c .3604

2

22df
= 192.929
significant at .0000
* p .10, ** p .05, ***p .01
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 95


An examination of the regression results revealed some clear
strengths and weaknesses in the ability of different variables to predict
national self-identification. Among the variables which showed particular
strength were the variables measuring the Importance of Becoming a
Citizen ( = .2698, p = .0000), and Language Preference ( = .2353, p =
.0000). Two other variables were also significant at the p .05 level; Age
of the Respondent ( = -.0151, p = .0153) and the Number of Years the
Respondent Had Been in the U.S. ( = .0297, p = .0014).
Two additional variables had a significance levels at p .10. The
first was Memberships in Community Organizations ( = -.1084, p =
.0596), and the second was whether or not the Applicant had Tried to Get
an Application for Citizenship ( = .2668, p=.0904).
42

At the other end of the spectrum, several variables were noteworthy
for their lack of significance. Four variables had significance levels of p >
.6. These were Gender ( = -.0688, p = .6336), Citizenship ( = .1406, p
= .6404), English Ability ( = .0096, p = .6692), and Income (.6927).
43

Although the results of this first regression provided significant
insight into the relative strength of each of the independent variables in
predicting national self-identification, it was felt that it would be
worthwhile to try and obtain a more parsimonious model. To this end,
additional models were run using a backward elimination process using
the Likelihood-Ratio statistic as the selection criterion.
The backward elimination process begins by including all
independent variables in the model. At each step, each variable is
iteratively removed and the likelihood-ratio statistic is calculated by
dividing the likelihood for the test model by the likelihood for the model
from the previous step. The variable with the highest p value for the
likelihood-ratio test is eliminated at each step. Since the parameter
estimates for each variable are affected by what other variables are
included in the model, re-running the model produces somewhat different
results with each iteration. The backward selection process continues
until all remaining variables have significant Likelihood-Ratio statistics
below a predetermined p value . For this study, the standard significance
level for selecting variables in this manner was used. Iterations were
continued until all the remaining variables had a value of p .10.
96 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Allowing the backward elimination process to proceed in this manner
generated eleven steps in the selection process. The final model, the
model in which all variables had a log LR value of .10 or lower is given
below:
National Self-Identification =
0
+
1
(Age) +
2

(Years in the U.S.) +
3
(Importance of Citizenship) +

4
(Reasons for not becoming a Citizen) +
5

(Memberships in Community Organizations) +
6

(Language Preference)
The reduced model was significant with a
2

22df
= 180.095 significant
at p = .0000. The model correctly predicted national self-identification in
66.39% of the cases, as compared to 68.07% of the cases for the full
model.
As with the full model, this reduced model (see table 8 below) was
somewhat more successful in predicting when the respondents identified
with their country of origin (71.53%) than when the respondents identified
with the U.S. (60.82%). Using this model, the Lambda-p and G/K Tau-c
values are not only similar to each other, but very similar to the Lambda-p
and G/K Tau-c values from the original model: the Lambda-p value being
.3002 and the G/K Tau-c value being .3267. Although the reduced model
was modestly less effective at predicting a respondents national self-
identification overall, it nevertheless compares favorably to the full model
and is clearly more parsimonious.

Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 97


Table 8. Logistic Regression Results - Reduced Model
Full Model Reduced Model
Variable Coefficient (S.E.) Coefficient (S.E.)
Gender -.0688 (.1444)
Age -.0151 (.0062) -.0149 (.0056)***
Years in the U.S. .0297 (.0093) .0343 (.0089)***
Citizenship .1406 (.3009)
Income
Income (1) -.4999 (.3430)
Income (2) -.3472 (.3050)
Income (3) -.5054 (.3049)
Income (4) -.4886 (.3388)
Income (5) -.5298 (.2874)
Income (6) -.3604 (.3115)
Income (7) -.1808 (.3481)
Education -.0273 (.0203)
Importance of Citizenship .2698 (.0480)
Tried to get Citizenship App .2668 (.1576)
Reasons for not Becoming
a Citizen -.0510 (.0358) -.0770 (.0209)***
Studied English,
History or Government -.0738 (.1016)
Knew Government Officials -.0923 (.1027)
Memberships in Comm. Orgs.-.1084 (.0576) -.1157 (.0521)**
Voting .0446 (.0673)
Political Participation -.0618 (.0743)
English Language Ability .0096 (.0224)
Language Preference .2353 (.0403) .2314 (.0315)***
Constant -1.9475 (.7409) -2.5638 (.5533)
Number of Cases 1068 1068
Percent Predicted Correctly 68.07% 66.39%
Proportional Reduction of Error
Lambda-p .3353 .3002
G-K Tau-c .3604 .3267

2

22 df
= 192.929
2

6 df
= 180.095
significant at .0000 significant at .0000
** p .05, ***p .01
98 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


An examination of the regression results shows that variables
measuring the Importance of Becoming a Citizen ( = .2750, p = .0000),
and Language Preference ( = .2314, p = .000) continue to be highly
significant. Similarly, the variables of Age ( = -.0149, p = .0073), Years
in the U.S. ( = .0343, p = .001), and Memberships in Community
Organizations ( = -.1157, p = .0263) continue to be significant.
The variable indicating whether or not the respondent had Tried to
Get a Citizenship Application, which was marginally significant in the
original regression, was eliminated from the equation in the 11
th
and last
step. The significance level for this variable rose above the p = .10 limit
in the 10
th
step when the Education variable was dropped. Although
initially puzzling, the connection between these two variables might be
understood in the following manner. If the variable, Getting an
Application for Citizenship, was measuring not only the desire to become
a citizen, but also the capacity to challenge the immigration bureaucracy,
then there would be a possibility of a modest co-linear relationship with
education. Individuals with a higher level of education might be more
capable of challenging the bureaucratic hurdles of obtaining citizenship,
and hence more likely to obtain an application. It should also be
remembered, however, that Education, although only significant at the p =
.1781 level, did have a negative coefficient (-.0273).
The variable Reasons for Not Becoming a Citizen was not
significant in the full model, however, interestingly it was retained in the
model selected through the backward elimination process. It dropped
below the p .10 level ( = -.0770, p = .0002) in the 3
rd
step when the
Citizenship variable was eliminated. That the Citizenship variable was
eliminated this early in the backward selection process is reflective of its
lack of predictive ability. Nevertheless, it was apparently acting as a
suppressor variable. The relationship between the two variables is clear,
in that those who had become citizens obviously had no reasons for not
becoming citizens.
Discussion
As described in the previous chapter, the academic literature, political
figures and commentators, and Supreme Court decisions have established
concepts of what it means to be an American. The objective of this
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 99


chapter was to operationalize those concepts using variables from the
NLIS and then use those variables in a logistic regression to examine if
they could predict whether respondents in the NLIS viewed themselves as
American or as members of their countries of origin.
What we have seen is that of the ten variables used to operationalize
the concepts developed in the previous chapter, (not including the control
variables) only two, the summary variable used to measure importance of
being a U.S. citizen, and the language preference variable, were
significant at the p .05 level in the full model. Additionally, the
variables measuring respondents feelings about reasons for not becoming
a citizen and the variable measuring memberships in community
organizations became significant in the model developed through the
backward elimination procedure. In either model, the ability of these
variables to predict identification with the U.S. is somewhat lower than
their ability to predict identification with the respondents country of
origin.
In addition to the variables listed above, two control variables, Age of
the respondent and Years in the U.S. were significant in both models.
Upon initial examination, perhaps the bigger surprises come not from
what items are good predictors of national self-identification, but rather
from which items were not good predictors. It would be expected that the
longer respondents had been in the U.S. the more likely they would be to
identify themselves as Americans. Similarly, it is not surprising that those
who prefer to use English in different settings are more likely to identify
themselves as Americans. What is initially surprising is that variables
such as Citizenship or Education are not good predictors. In the case of
Citizenship, it must be remembered that obtaining citizenship is a function
not only of desire and purposeful intent, but also of opportunity,
confidence to challenge the immigration bureaucracy, ability to pass the
exam, etc. Nevertheless the relationship between Citizenship and national
self-identification will be something to watch closely in the focus group
interviews. As for Education, an assumption that greater education would
automatically associate an individual to American culture is not
necessarily correct. As was noted in the previous chapter, Stanley
Lieberson (1985) and Tom Smith (1980) both found that it was
individuals with lower levels of education who were less likely to identify
100 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


themselves with a hyphenated ancestry. Thus, although greater education
might facilitate an individuals functioning in the United States, greater
education may also make them aware of their own heritage. It is,
therefore, understandable that education would not be a good predictor of
national self-identification.
More puzzling, however, was the negative relationship between
Number of Memberships in Community Organizations and national
self-identification as American. Putnam (2000) as well as others cited
above, argue strongly that participation in community organizations is an
American characteristic. The possible answer to this apparent
inconsistency is not to be found in the data available through the NLIS,
but rather through the comments given by some of the participants in the
focus groups which will be discussed in the next chapter.
Summary
Given the results of the logistic regression, how predictive were the
original four concepts developed in the previous chapter to the actual
national self-identification of the NLIS respondents? The results are
certainly mixed. On the one hand, variables such as the summary variables
on the Importance of Citizenship, or Reasons for Not Becoming a
Citizen give support to the connection between the concept of belief in
the American system of government and national self-identification as an
American. Conversely, Voting or Participation in Politics were not
predictive at all.
English language ability was among the poorest predictors.
Conversely, English language preference was one of the strongest
predictors. The original concept developed in the previous chapter was
that a requirement of being American was that immigrants should develop
English language ability sufficient to be able to participate in the political
process. From the logistic regression results it is apparent there is a
conceptual disconnect between English language ability and preference
for using the English language. The results indicate that those who prefer
to speak Spanish are more likely to identify with their countries of origin,
and that increased English language ability does not increase the
probability of their identifying as Americans.
Logistic Examination of the Allegiance Variable 101


Table 9. Logistic Regression Summary
Concepts NLIS Variable(s) Significant
Belief in the
American System of
Government
Importance of Being a
Citizen
Reasons for not being a
Citizen
Tried to get Application
Studied English/History
Knew Government Leaders
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Memberships in
Community
Organizations
Memberships in Community
Organizations
YES
(negatively)
Political
Participation
Voting
Political Participation
NO
NO
Learn English
sufficient to
participate in the
political process
English Ability
Language Preference
NO
YES
If we were to redefine Language Preference as an expression of
cultural preference rather than as a marker of American identity, the
difference between the two variables is easier to understand. Further, this
would support the proposal that national self-identification is more of a
cultural expression, rather than a political one.
In theory, those respondents who displayed more of the
characteristics of being American, as outlined in the previous chapter,
should have been more likely to identify with the U.S.; whereas those
respondents who displayed fewer of those characteristics should have
been more likely to identify with their countries of origin. However, what
we have found is that most of the criteria developed in the previous
chapter do not predict national self-identification in the NLIS data set.
This leads us back to the initial question of this study. If respondents
self-identification as Americans or with their countries of origin is not
adequately predicted by the criteria for being American found in
102 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


academic literature, political commentary, and popular writings, what then
are Hispanic immigrants expressing when they identify themselves as
American, or with their countries of origin? This question clearly cannot
be fully answered through an inquiry into the NLIS data, but rather calls
for in-depth interviews specifically designed to address this issue. This,
then, is the next step.

103
CHAPTER 4

Talking to the People:
The Focus Groups









Background
The statistical analysis of the data from the NLIS provided some insight
into what variables were or were not related to whether immigrants
identify themselves as Americans or with their countries of origin.
Unfortunately, the analysis of the NLIS necessarily suffers from two
limitations. First, as was noted in the previous chapter, the NLIS
questionnaire was not developed specifically to address the question of
national self-identification. Therefore even a thorough secondary analysis
of the NLIS data can be expected to leave some aspects of the national
self-identification issue unexplored. Second, being a telephone survey,
the NLIS researchers had the opportunity to receive input from a large
number of respondents. However, the telephone survey format makes it
very difficult to explore issues in depth. Consequently, feelings and
explanation as to why respondents answered questions in a certain manner
and often not collected. Perhaps the most important piece of information
which could not be addressed in the NLIS was what respondents actually
meant when they expressed identification as Americans or with their
countries of origin.
In this study, this limitation was addressed by gathering information
via focus group interviews conducted with participants selected from a
population similar to that of the NLIS.
44
Focus groups, as a research
104 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


method, have the strength of 1) allowing for exploration and discovery, 2)
providing context and depth, and 3) providing a context for the why
behind respondents answers. (Morgan 1998, 1:12). In contrast to the
telephone survey methodology used in the NLIS, which asked a wide
range of brief questions from a large sample of respondents, a focus group
interview approach asks a few probing open-ended questions of a
necessarily small number of participants. As noted by Morgan, focus
groups produce large amounts of concentrated data in a short period of
time (ibid., 1:32). In a focus group interview, a moderator can explore in
greater depth the feelings of the focus group participants with regard to an
issue. Focus group interviews allow participants the opportunity to more
completely express their opinions.
For this study, the information gathered through focus groups will:
provide confirmation and clarification for the results of the
logistic regression,
allow respondents to answer for themselves what they mean
when they identify themselves as Americans or with their
countries of origin, and lastly
explore additional issues which could not be addressed via the
logistic regression.
Focus Group Organization
Unlike sampling for survey research or experimental designs, which
attempts to obtain a representation of a large population by selecting a
statistically valid sample of respondents, selecting participants for focus
groups has a different goal in mind. Focus groups are designed to provide
greater depth of information on specific topics of interest, therefore,
sampling for focus groups is purposive in nature (Morgan 1998, 2:56), and
participants are selected according to the goals or needs of the project.
Thus, Morgan notes, participants can or should be selected according to
the categories of participants which need to be heard and what kinds of
similarities and differences need to be examined (ibid., 64).

Talking to the People 105



Focus Group Participant Selection Criteria
Because the purpose of the focus group interviews was to provide greater
depth to the quantitative analysis done on the NLIS data, the population
selected for the focus groups mirrored as much as possible the population
of the NLIS study. The population invited to the focus group interviews
were adult Hispanic immigrants who had been legal residents in the U.S.
for five or more years, living in areas of high, moderate, and low Hispanic
concentration. The areas initially targeted were: Huntington Park,
California; Riverside, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Provo, Utah.
The Huntington Park locale was selected to provide Hispanics from an
area of high Hispanic concentration. The Riverside site was selected to
provide Hispanics from an area with somewhat lower Hispanic
concentration, but still within a state with a very high Hispanic presence.
The Salt Lake City and Provo sites were selected to provide participants
from areas of lower local Hispanic concentration as well as from a state
where the Hispanic presence overall is significantly lower.
Because the logistic regression indicated that the age of the
respondent and time in the U.S. were significant variables in predicting
national self-identification, these factors were also taken into
consideration in recruiting participants for the focus group interviews.

Participant Selection
Initially a three stage process was planned for recruiting participants. Key
individuals were going to be contacted in each area where the focus
groups were to be held. These key contacts were asked to provide a list of
four to five additional names of individuals in each of these areas. This
second set of individuals were then to be asked to provide the names of
three to four individuals each. It was to be this third set of individuals
which would then be screened for participation in the focus groups.
The intent of this three stage process was two-fold. First this method
would assure that individuals selected for the focus group were not known
to the researcher. Second, this method was expected to aid in diversifying
the pool of participants.
106 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Almost immediately, a minor revision was required. The selected key
individuals in the different areas largely felt it improper to pass along the
responsibility of recruiting persons, but rather preferred to do the
recruiting themselves, further, insisting that the gatherings take place in
their homes. As I discussed the organization of the focus groups with
several of the key individuals, it became apparent that their requests were
based upon and in keeping with notions of propriety and familiarity within
the Latino culture. After ensuring that the two goals of the selection
process would be met (selecting individuals not known to the researcher,
and selecting a diverse pool of individuals), the selected key individuals
were permitted to organize the groups in the manner they suggested, and
conduct the groups in their homes.
In Salt Lake City a different kind of recruitment opportunity
presented itself. A residential neighborhood near the down town area
hosts a Hispanic community and education center known as The
Guadalupe Center. Among its many activities, this center sponsors
evening classes for members of the local community. Discussions with
the Center director and his designated staff members revealed both an
enthusiasm to assist in the project, as well as a ready list of individuals
who could be screened for eligibility and interest to participate in the
focus groups. After again ensuring that the two goals of the selection
process would be met, Guadalupe Center personal were invited assist in
organizing the focus group in the Salt Lake area.
Because the opportunity presented itself, and as an extra measure to
assure the desired diversity among the recruited population, the number of
groups was increased resulting in interviews being conducted in the
following locations:
Salt Lake City, Utah
Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, California,
45

Riverside, Riverside County, California
Rialto, San Bernardino County, California

Talking to the People 107



Chino, San Bernardino County, California
Provo, Utah

Language of the Focus Groups
Approximately 71% of the respondents to the NLIS indicated they spoke
principally Spanish in their homes. An additional 19% indicated they
spoke both English and Spanish equally in their homes. Given that this
study was tapping into a population similar to the NLIS, it was expected
that the majority, if not all, of the participants in the focus groups would
be comfortable discussing these issues in Spanish. Nevertheless in each
focus group it was made clear that participants should feel comfortable in
using the language in which they felt most comfortable. Also, all the
written materials used during the focus groups were provided in both
English and Spanish.
Only two of the participants (Frank - Bell Gardens, Mike - Chino
46
)
spoke exclusively in English, although both understood Spanish. Several
of the participants switched between Spanish and English occasionally
during the course of the discussion. This was usually done to clarify a
point or because a term could not be recalled in Spanish. As a focus
group moderator with over ten years of experience conducting focus
groups in English, Spanish, and bilingually, these groups presented no
particular or peculiar difficulties.

Short Questionnaire
In order to obtain some minimal demographic information, and some
information which could be useful in comparing the focus group
participants to the NLIS respondents, a short questionnaire was distributed
to the focus group participants. This questionnaire replicated a subset of
questions from the NLIS.
The questionnaires were translated using the following method:
An initial translator made a translation of the questionnaire
from English into Spanish.
108 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


A second translator verified the translation. Where changes
were suggested, I acted as arbiter determining which of the
two suggested translation would be used.
Last, a third translator reviewed the Spanish translation
comparing it back to the English original.

Tape Recording the Focus Groups
The focus group interviews were audio tape recorded for the purpose of
supplementing the notes taken by the facilitator. The focus group
participants were made aware that they were going to be recorded and
were asked to give their consent in writing. Participants were advised that
if at any point during the focus group they would like to make a comment
with the tape recorder turned off, they could request the recorder to be
turned off. No one expressed discomfort at being recorded, and it did not
appear to affect the openness of the interviews in any way.

Identification of Participants
The nature of focus group interviews is such that being able to call
participants by name during the course of the interview may significantly
add to a positive, friendly, open atmosphere. Therefore, it is appropriate
to know and use the first name of the participants during the course of the
focus group. It is not necessary, however, to know or record the last name
of a participant.
Even though only first names were used, all notes, survey
instruments, and tapes were secured as confidential materials. Since the
project plan required the taping of the focus group only for the purpose of
supplementing the facilitators notes, a full transcription of the tapes was
not required, and therefore no transcriptionist was employed. This further
added to the confidentiality of the taped materials.

Informed Consent
All potential participants were informed that participation in the study was
completely voluntary, that audio recordings of the session would be made,
and that their names would never be used in reporting the results of the
Talking to the People 109



study. Participants were informed that they could refuse to answer any
question, that they could request to have the tape recording stopped while
they gave a particular answer, and that they could cease participation in
the focus group at any time. Written consent forms, in the language of
their choice, were distributed to each of the study participant. Each
consent form reiterated the voluntary and confidential nature of the study.

Direct Benefit/Risk to Participants
Although participants in this study did not receive any direct benefit as a
result of their participation, they were informed that their participation
would aid in broadening the understanding of immigrant attitudes about
becoming American.
Despite the offering of any incentive for participation, all of the
participants seemed very happy at the opportunity participate in an
academic endeavor, and became very engaged in the process. Several
participants indicated that they had never had the opportunity to have this
type of in depth, thoughtful discussion on these types of issues.
Because all of the participants were legal immigrants, by identifying
the participants only by their first names, and by securing all the materials
as described above, the participants were not placed at risk by
participating in this study.
Participant Demographics
A total of 52 individuals participated in 6 focus groups. As expected, the
majority of the participants identified Mexico as their country of origin,
however, there were also participants from El Salvador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru. Below are brief comparisons
between the focus group participants and the NLIS respondents on the
variables used as control variables in the logistic regression reported in the
previous chapter.


110 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Gender
Forty-six percent of the focus group participants were male and 54%
female. This compares to the 39% male and 61% female composition of
the NLIS respondents Although there is clearly some difference here
between the two populations, the results of the logistic regression
indicated that gender was not significant in predicting the national self-
identification variable. This finding was verified through the focus group
interviews in that there was no discernable difference in the responses
given by males and females on any of the questions.

Age
The focus group interview participants ranged in age between 21 and 65
with a median age of 38. By comparison, the NLIS population ranged
from 18 to 88 with a median age of 40.

Years in the United States
As with the NLIS study, participants in the focus groups represented a
broad range of years of residency in the United States. Focus group
participants had been in the U.S. between 5 and 46 years with a median of
16 years in the U.S. By comparison, the NLIS population ranged between
1 and 58 years in the U.S. with a median of 18 years in the U.S.
47


Citizenship
Fifty-five percent of the participants in the focus groups were citizens.
Among NLIS respondents, only 36% were citizens. As with gender,
citizenship as a variable was not significant in the logistic regression.
This finding was confirmed in the focus groups in that, with a few
exceptions which will be noted later in this chapter, there were no
discernable differences in the responses of citizens and non-citizens to the
questions asked during the focus group interviews.

Income
Income level for the participants in the focus group interviews ranged
from the lowest category - less than $750 a month, to the highest category
- more than $5,200 a month. The median category was $2,501 to $3,000 a
Talking to the People 111



month. In the NLIS study, the income ranged between its lowest category
of less than $500 a month ($736 in adjusted 2000 dollars), to its highest
category of over $3,000 a month ($4,415 adjusted). Its median income
category was $1,201 to $1,499 a month ($1,767 to$2,206 adjusted). A
higher median income level of the participants in the focus group
interviews than in the NLIS population is largely due to composition of
the group in Chino. This group had 6 respondents with incomes over
$5,200 a month, and no respondents with incomes less than $3,401 a
month. Although participants in this group were clearly more
economically advantaged than those in the other groups, it should be
remembered that, as with gender, the results of the logistic regression
indicated that income was not significant in predicting the national self-
identification variable. This finding was verified through the focus group
interviews in that there was no discernable difference in the responses
given by the Chino group and any of the other groups.

Education
The education levels of the focus group participants and NLIS
respondents were very similar. The focus group participants had a median
education level of 12 years of completed schooling whereas the NLIS
respondents had a median education level of 11 years. The focus group
participants had a mean education level of 11.31 years of completed
schooling and the NLIS respondents having a mean education level of
10.07 years.
Interview Questions
Given that the purpose of conducting focus group interviews was to better
understand the responses given in the NLIS survey, there was an obvious
need to allow respondents time to fully express their answers. Perhaps
one of the biggest errors made in conducting focus group interviews is to
ask too many questions and not allow sufficient time for participants to
elaborate upon their responses. For example, if a focus group consisted of
8 persons, and was scheduled to last 90 minutes, asking a series of 10
questions would allow each respondent just over 1 minute to answer each
question. This would likely not be sufficient time for a participant to fully
explain their answers, nor would it allow time for discussion among
112 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


participants, or probes by the focus group moderator. With this in mind,
these focus groups were planned to run 12 to 2 hours with 5 principal
questions being asked. This would allow each respondent in an 8-person
group 2.5 minutes to respond to any question, plus still provide time for
some amount of follow-up probing, as well as time for a brief welcome
and a few close-ended introductory questions at the beginning of the
session.
During the welcome, the purpose of the focus group was explained
48
,
and the informed consent forms were distributed to and signed by the
participants.

Introductory Questions
The introductory questions included:
What is your country of origin?
At what age did you immigrate to the U.S.?
How long have you been in the U.S.?
Understanding that age might be a sensitive topic for some of the
participants, the questions were usually asked with the word
approximately added to the age or years in the U.S. question. This
allowed the possibility for participants to not give their exact age if they
felt uncomfortable doing so. The actual impact on the groups, however,
was that rather than discomfort, this became a joking point as they made
comments such as, Oh, now we are going to know how old you really
are! The overall effect was that this allowed the participants to come
together as a group, and to shed some inhibitions about talking and
sharing as a group. It effectively became a great ice breaker.

Principal Questions
Five principal questions were asked of the focus group participants.
These questions were:
Talking to the People 113



Which of the following best describes how you see yourself:
More as an American, more as a member of your country of
origin, or as something else?
This question automatically elicited discussion by the participants as
to why they viewed themselves the way they did.
To you, what is an American or what does it mean to be
American?
This question provided the participants an opportunity to express their
feelings about what it means to be American, but also why they did or did
not identify themselves as American in the previous question.
The next principal question was:
Have you sought to obtain U.S. citizenship? If yes why, if
no, why not?
This question brought into the discussion an apparently political
question, that of citizenship. As will be reported below, however, often
citizenship turned out not to be a political issue.
The final questions were as follow:
If the border were to close tomorrow and you would have to
either stay here or stay in your country of origin; where
would you choose to stay?
Imagine a situation where the U.S. has become involved in a
war with a European country. If asked, would you fight for
the U.S. or encourage your children to fight for the U.S.?
What if it were a Latin American country other than your
country of origin? What if it were your country of origin?

114 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


Focus Group Results
The following sections will summarize the comments from the focus
group participants on the principal questions. Although names will be
used in reporting out the results of the focus group, it must be understood
that these are pseudonyms and not the true names of the participants. The
pseudonyms have been very purposefully selected so as to convey much
of the same contextual information that the participants real name would
have conveyed. For example, comments from an individual named Juan
who identifies himself as an American might take on a different tone to
the reader if he were a John and who identified himself as an American.
Therefore, if a participant had a Spanish name such as Pedro, the
pseudonym replacement similarly became a Spanish name such as Carlos.
In turn, a participant with an English name such as John would receive
pseudonym such as Charles. Multiple derivations of the same name, such
as Pedro, Peter and Pete among the pseudonyms reflect similar derivations
in the true names of the participants. If multiple participants share the
same pseudonym it is because they shared the same true name. Where
multiple participants had the same name, they are differentiated by
location of interview.
Which of the Following Best Describes how You See
Yourself: More as an American
49
, More as a Member of
Your Country of Origin, or as Something Else?
As anticipated, this was not an easy question for most of the participants
to answer. Those who identified with the United States usually made
comments such as those of Peter (Rialto) who said that at work, he felt
American. Daniel (Bell Gardens) stated he felt totally American because
it (America) had given him so much. Gilbert (Provo) said he felt
American, and added that when he woke up in the morning, he didnt
expect that anyone was going to treat him as a Bolivian. He didnt feel
segregated by his heritage. Manuel (Riverside) although interestingly not
using the term American said he was from here, after all, his house, his
family, and his dog were all from here. There were a few respondents
who had grown up on the border, or in towns in Mexico where there was a
strong American corporate presence. The comment from Hortencia
(Riverside) typifies their feelings. She said she had grown up on the
border, but had always felt as though she were from the U.S.
Talking to the People 115



But those expressing identification with the U.S. often had mixed
feelings about their identity. Peter (Rialto), for example, after saying he
felt American, went on to say that it was when he was with his people
(Mexicans) that he felt a conflict. Sometimes, he mused, he wished he
could feel more Mexican. Alberto (Chino) indicated he felt American, but
it depended on how he was seen by others. Alberto related that when he
had encountered racism on the part of the government it made him feel
more Mexican.
This confusion was certainly also felt by many who identified with
their countries of origin. Isaac (Bell Gardens) indicated that if someone
asked him, what are you he would reply Salvadorian. But, he went on
to say, he had grown up American. On the street he eats American food;
at home, of course, he eats Salvadorian food. Frank (Francisco - Bell
Gardens) wryly stated that when he looks in the mirror in the morning, he
sees a Mexican. Interestingly, Augie had been in the U.S. over 30 years,
preferred to speak English, and spoke English without an accent. Cristina
(Riverside) expressed the feeling of many when she said that she was a
Mexican, but her life was here now. She indicated that shed like to visit
but not return to Mexico. Simply, from her point of view, there are more
opportunities here. But, she concluded, I like this country.
There were a few individuals, who like Pablo (Salt Lake) indicated he
felt Mexican, but went on to say they felt at home here, because this land,
the American West, was really part of Mexico illegally acquired by the
U.S. As far as Jos was concerned, he was very comfortable living here in
the midst of his language (Spanish), his culture (Mexican), his family and
friends. Given this strong association to his Mexican heritage, I was
somewhat surprised to find out a little bit later in the interview, that Pablo
was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Bertha (Provo), also a naturalized citizen identified herself as
Mexican. She said you never lose your roots. Being a naturalized citizen
no me quita el nopal! Bertha stated emphatically.
50

Apart from those who identified themselves as Americans or with
their countries of origin, there were many who could not classify
116 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


themselves with either group. Antonio (Salt Lake) expressed the feeling
of several participants when he said that his roots were in Mexico, but he
was here now so he guessed that made him Mexican American, but really
he was from neither here nor there anymore.
Overall, the most common threads through all of the comments, both
from those who identified as Americans and those who identified with
their countries of origin, was that the United States offered great
opportunities to progress financially and educationally. The U.S. offered
a home, a place where their families could grow, and a new culture. As
Rosa-2 (Riverside) stated, she considers herself Mexican, but all she has
or ever will have is from here in the U.S. Pedro (Riverside) expressed his
feelings by saying that undoubtedly they were all from Mexico, but as
they absorb U.S. culture, they become American. He went on to say that
as he travels home (to Mexico) he doesnt feel comfortable any more.
Hes Mexican, but he feels American. He said, Ive absorbed the
culture.
Consistently, the participants spoke about the love they held for the
cultures of their countries of origin, and many commented on the families
still living there.
51
Although references were often made to, mi pas,
which could be translated my country, I believe that in the context of
their other comments the more appropriate translation would be, my
homeland.
There were no political references made at all when expressing any
identification with the United States. The most common political
references were the negative references made toward their nations of
origin. Sonia-1 (Chino), Juan-1 (Chino), and Pete (Chino) all agreed that
the only reason they were in the U.S. rather than in Mexico was because
of government corruption there.
To You, What is an American or What Does it Mean to be
American?
The responses to this question fell along four basic lines of thought.
Participants defined being American:

Talking to the People 117



using ethnic/racial concepts,
using cultural concepts,
as a mind set, and
as a set of political values.
The first line of thought was that an American was an Anglo-Saxon
or Gavacho (white American). Among those defining American this way
was Rosa-3 (Riverside) who noted that her kids were born here, but they
were not really Americans, because to be an American you had to be
white. Alberto (Chino) said Americans are the Anglo-Saxons, the white
Europeans, and also the minorities (Blacks) here in the U.S. Rosa-1
(Riverside) put it bluntly by answering that Americans were the Gringos.
When Alicia (Bell Gardens), a naturalized citizen, returned to the U.S.
from a trip to Canada, she was stopped at the border and asked to declare
citizenship. But stating she was American was not sufficient, they
questioned her further as to where she was born. Alicia said it was
because she didnt look American. She wasnt white.
The second line of thought was that American referred to a
particular culture. Its eating hamburgers instead of beans, was how
Magdalena (Rialto) described it. Isaac (Bell Gardens) also defined being
American in terms of culture. He referred to the ideas and customs that
make Americans Americans. Isaac and others also spoke about the
clothing and mannerisms they identified as being American. After all,
Jorge said, America is a melting pot, so being American had to be more
than just race. It was this sense of culture that caused Hilda (Bell
Gardens, a naturalized citizen, to declare she could never call herself
American because her roots were in Mexico. Manuel (Riverside) felt that
when immigrant children lose their native language and adopt English,
they become American. Jorge (Riverside) immediately added that it was
not just language, but culture as well.
Salvador (Rialto), however felt that being American went beyond
culture. To be American, Salvador said is to feel what Americans feel; to
118 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


understand what gives them joy, what they consider fun. Salvador, a
naturalized U.S. citizen, didnt feel that this was something he had
achieved. Frank (Francisco - Bell Gardens) described being American as
a mind set. Elvia (Provo) also described being American as a mind set,
specifically mentioning attributes such as being logical and organized.
Although a naturalized citizen, Elvia frankly admitted that she didnt have
what she described as Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Juan-2 (Chino) felt that
being American was a way of looking at things, a set of values. Gilbert
(Provo) also felt being American was a mind set, but he described it in
more detail. He felt being American as being able to live within the
American system; being able to dealing with the culture and the laws.
There were some participants who specifically mentioned political
values as the values that make someone American. Jorge (Chino) spoke
of being American as having freedom of speech and liberty. To him an
American is someone who feels that liberty. Daniel (Bell Gardens) spoke
of the freedom to vote, the freedom to move about, the freedom to act, and
the freedom to exercise your rights. Eljia (Chino) talked about adapting to
the American System. When youve adapted, then you are an American
she said. Edgar (Bell Gardens) expressed the feelings of some when he
bluntly stated that when you become a citizen, then you are an American.
Clearly, there was then no consensus on what it meant to be an
American. The four themes that developed, beyond being different in
focus, also describe a range of attitudes about the very possibility of an
Hispanic immigrant ever becoming American. Those who viewed being
American in ethnic/racial terms were also saying that it was impossible for
them ever to become Americans. As Alberto (Chino) put it, Im not
going to look whiter because Im in the U.S. longer.
For some who viewed being American in cultural terms, the
possibility existed of becoming American. For example Peter (Rialto)
who said he felt American at work, even though he wished he could be
more Mexican. However, there were those who viewed their roots as a
permanent attachment to their country of origin which meant they would
never become American, even if they became citizens. This was the case
with Hilda (Bell Gardens) cited above, who was a naturalized citizen. But
those who viewed being American in cultural terms at least felt their
Talking to the People 119



children could become or were American, which was not a possibility for
those who viewed being American in ethnic/racial terms.
Those who viewed being American as a mind set were also divided as
to the possibility of becoming American. It was, after all as Elvia (Provo)
said, just a matter of being more logical, more organized. However, even
she felt that some of those traits were not all positive. Yes, Americans
were more logical, but they were also socially cold, not necessarily an
attribute to strive for in her estimation. Salvador (Rialto) talked about a
shared set of experiences making one American. But, even though he was
a naturalized citizen, he didnt yet feel he had obtained this level of shared
understanding.
Interestingly, those who defined being American in political terms
were potentially the most inclusive. Belief in the American government,
being accepting and supportive of the freedoms enjoyed in the United
States, accepting civic responsibility, are things that anyone, regardless of
race, cultural attachments, or lack of shared experience can nevertheless
support and be a part of.
There were, however, some curious aspects to some of these
American political behaviors that actually may have strengthened the
participants identification with their countries of origin rather than as
Americans. As noted in the previous chapters discussion of the logistic
regression results, participation in community organizations was
negatively correlated to respondents identifying themselves as Americans.
Although this was initially somewhat of a puzzle, it was clarified by the
comments made in the focus groups. Generally, when the focus group
participants spoke of involvement in community organizations or even
voting, they spoke of them as opportunities to give voice to the needs of
their families, the Hispanic community or as opportunities to benefit their
people. One of the principle reasons Alicia (Bell Gardens) became a
citizen was so that she could be in a better position to help Salvadorian
refugees. She related her experience of going to the Mission in Los
Angeles and sleeping alongside the refugees in efforts to thwart INS mass
deportations. The literature and the focus group participants agree that
community activism are very American things to do, but the reality is that
120 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


at least to some extent they are being done to give voice to the needs of
their families and the broader Hispanic community. Thus, this type of
participation may strengthen ties to the ethnic community while at the
same time exercising a classic American virtue of civic participation.
Have You Sought to Obtain U.S. Citizenship? If Yes Why, if
No Why Not?
As noted above, approximately half of the participants in the focus group
interviews were naturalized citizens. The majority of those who were not
yet citizens indicated they were in process of seeking to obtain citizenship.

Reasons for Being a Citizen
The reasons for becoming citizens fell principally along five lines of
thought, which were:
they were now resident here so they might as well obtain
citizenship,
citizenship would allow for greater opportunities,
citizenship would provide a level of security within society no
longer available through mere legal residency,
citizenship would allow for fuller participation in the United
States community, and
citizenship was an obligation of living in the Unites States.
The first line of thought was clearly expressed by Pedro (Riverside)
who said that one day he decided he was going to stay in the U.S., so why
not become a citizen. Once her husband died, Avelina (Bell Gardens) felt
she had no reason to ever return to Mexico. Her family was now here, so
she became a citizen.
The second line of thinking was that obtaining citizenship would
allow for greater opportunities. Among the benefits mentioned by focus
group participants were economic benefits, and the benefits of mobility.
Talking to the People 121



Rosa-3 (Riverside) and Magdalena (Rialto) also felt citizenship was
important for the range and quality of jobs that could be obtained. Liliana
(Salt Lake) felt all Hispanic immigrants wanted to become citizens
particularly for the economic benefits that would come as a result. She
also observed that citizenship gave one the ability to move back and forth
across the border easily. Alfredo (Salt Lake) concurred that as an
American citizen you were free to travel anywhere relatively
unencumbered. Alicia (Bell Gardens) commented on how great it was to
go past the border stations and say, American citizen. Javier (Provo)
and Bertha (Provo) both commented that a principle reason they had
sought citizenship was for the benefit of being able to bring other family
members to the United States. This was a very rarely mentioned benefit
of citizenship among the focus group participants.
A third line of thinking was that citizenship provided for a sense of
security residing in the United States. For these individuals there
appeared to be a heightened state of concern because of what they
perceived as anti-immigrant feelings and anti-immigrant legislation in the
very recent past. Being merely a legal resident was no longer a safe or
secure status in the U.S. Comments from Jesus (Bell Gardens) were
typical of this group when he said that he felt Mexican, but became a
citizen to make a life here, and so as not to have legal problems later.
Rosa-1 (Riverside) and Nicolasas (Riverside) echoed these feelings, that
obtaining citizenship would provide a greater sense of security. Nicolasa
(Rialto) commented that she couldnt go back to El Salvador, so she
needed some assurance that she belonged here.
A few individuals viewed obtaining citizenship as an important step
in being able to more fully participate in the United States. Salvador
(Rialto) stated that citizenship was important to participate in political
things. He said he kept hearing of the importance of Latino political
participation. He wanted to participate for the benefit of his children.
Gilbert (Provo) felt similarly. He observed that becoming a citizen had
not been a priority to him until he married and began having children here.
Rosa-3 (Riverside) also felt citizenship was important to be able to more
fully participate politically and socially in the U.S. Alicia (Bell Gardens)
122 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


also noted the importance of voting, but she also noted that with dual
citizenship, she also voted in Mexico.
Lastly, a few individuals viewed obtaining citizenship as an
obligation of living in the U.S. Peter (Rialto) said he felt he was part of
this nation. He lived here, and felt an obligation to the nation, and hence
wanted to be a citizen.

Reasons for Not Being a Citizen
Not very many individuals gave reasons for not becoming a citizen. Most
of the focus group participants who were not citizens were in the process
of becoming citizens. Of those who had not yet obtained citizenship the
reasons fell along two themes, 1) challenges of obtaining citizenship, and
2) no real desire or benefit to obtaining citizenship.
Angela (Salt Lake), Rosa (Salt Lake) and Antonio (Salt Lake) all
mentioned fear of the exam as one reason why they had put off applying
for citizenship. Maria (Salt Lake) observed wryly that the individuals
born in the United States didnt have to take an exam to be citizens, and
she wondered if many of them could pass such a test if it were given.
Pablo (Salt Lake), now a citizen, mentioned that for many people, time
and money were real roadblocks to obtaining citizenship.
Isaac (Bell Gardens), although he said he felt he had grown up
American, felt no hurry to become a citizen. He said rather frankly that he
didnt have a need to be a citizen. Frank (Bell Gardens) concurred saying
that until he decided that he wanted to vote he really hadnt had a need to
become a citizen. Julio (Provo) said he was in no rush to obtain
citizenship. After all, he noted, whether you are a citizen, a legal resident,
or an illegal alien, you have the rights in the United States. Perhaps the
strongest opinion along this line came from Betty (Rialto) who said that to
her citizenship was just a piece of paper, a legal technicality. This
comment was in sharp contrast to the feelings of Daniel (Bell Gardens)
who said that to be an American was a great privilege, or the comments of
Rosa-3 (Riverside) who said that on the day she became a citizen she felt
different, or Alicia (Bell Gardens) who said that after she became a citizen
she felt more American.
Talking to the People 123



Summary
Reasons for being a citizen ranged from almost a default action because
they intended to be permanent residents of the United States, to an action
taken for the benefits that would be derived, whether those benefits were
economic, a sense of security, or a possibility for political involvement, to
a sense of obligation. Reasons for not becoming a citizen were either
procedural (time, money, etc), fear of passing the test, or simply a lack of
interest.
Except for those few like Peter (Rialto) who felt it a sense of
obligation to become a citizen, or Rosa-3 (Riverside) or Alicia (Bell
Gardens) who felt more American after becoming citizens, becoming a
citizen was not necessarily an expression of feeling American. It should
be remembered that even Alicia, who said she felt more American after
becoming a citizen, still primarily identifies herself as Mexican. This
confirms the results of the logistic regression where citizenship was not a
good predictor of national self-identification.
If the Border Were to Close Tomorrow, and You Would
Have to Either Stay Here or Stay in Your Country of Origin,
Where Would You Choose to Stay?
With only two exceptions, all the participants of the focus groups
eventually concluded that they would stay in the United States, but the
decision was often not an easy one. The opinion of many was well
expressed by Bertha (Provo) who said, Que la sieren, yo me quedo aqu!
(Let them close it, Im staying here). For others it was a more difficult
decision. Avelina (Bell Gardens), Jesus (Bell Gardens), and Hilda (Bell
Gardens) all agreed that if it werent for family here in the U.S., they
would return to Mexico if the borders were to close. Angela (Salt Lake)
and Antonio (Salt Lake) were the only participants who didnt feel they
could answer the question. Pablos (Salt Lake) quandary was specifically
that his family was now all here in the U.S., while much of his wifes
family remained in Mexico.
Family was the central theme around which most of the respondents
formed their answers to this question. Nicolasas (Riverside) said she
124 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


would stay here, but with great pain because of the family she would leave
in Mexico. But the most common answers are typified by the response of
Elvia (Provo) who stated that her children were here, as well as her
mother and her brother. Why would she leave? It is worth noting that the
fact she is now a U.S. citizen did not appear to enter into her reasons for
staying.
Imagine a Situation Where the U.S. Has Become Involved in
a War with a European Country. If asked, Would You Fight
for the U.S. or Encourage Your Children to Fight for the
U.S.? What if it Were a Latin American Country Other than
Your Country of Origin? What if it Were Your Country of
Origin?
Most participants of the focus groups had little difficulty declaring they
would support the United States in a conflict or a war against a European
country. Peter (Rialto) expressed the feelings of many when he said that it
was an part of citizenship, an obligation.
52
Supporting the nation in such a
cause is part of the price of living here. Javier (Provo) felt it was part of
his obligation as a naturalized citizen. I would have to go, was his reply.
Jorge (Riverside) declared he felt we have to defend what we have here in
the U.S. He also felt this was a way of thanking the nation for what it had
given him. Jorge (Chino) felt similarly and spoke about what this country
had given him. Julio (Provo), although earlier expressing he felt no rush
to obtain citizenship, noted with some pride the heritage of Latinos
serving in the U.S. military.
When the question was posed about supporting the United States in a
war against a Latin American country, the large majority still voiced the
opinion that they would fight for the U.S. However, a few individuals
now began to express some concerns. Elvia (Provo) for example was
honestly surprised that the U.S. had supported England against Argentina
in the war for the Maldivas (Falkland Islands). Why, she wondered,
would the U.S. support a powerful European country instead of a less
powerful county in its own hemisphere? Rosa (Salt Lake) said she would
have to take the cause of the war into consideration. Alfredo (Salt Lake)
and Antonio (Salt Lake) both wondered if there might not be racial
overtones involved. Although these few concerns were raised, overall, the
Talking to the People 125



large majority expressed support for the U.S. in a war against a Latin
American country.
Not surprisingly, coming to a decision on this issue became much
more difficult when the question was asked whether they would support
the United States in a war against their own countries of origin. There
were many sighs and comments about the difficult nature of the question.
Still, most indicated they would support the United States. Isaac (Bell
Gardens) said that any country that threatened this country threatened his
family, his lifestyle, and his life. Pedro (Riverside) felt it would be very
hard, but he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. by becoming a citizen.
Jorge (Riverside) at first expressed the feeling that he would fight for
whichever country had the just cause. He shortly thereafter recanted and
said he would have to fight for the U.S.
The principal problem in fighting against their countries of origin was
well expressed by Alberto (Chino) who said he would not oppose the U.S.
in a war against Mexico, but he could not fight, not against his family.
Pete (Chino) expressed this same concern about fighting against his
families in Mexico. He went on to say that he would have no problem
fighting against the Mexican government, it was the Mexican people he
would not want to fight against. Liz (Chino) voiced the opinion that
without reservation she would fight against her country of origin to end
the corruption there. Javier (Provo) expressed a similar sentiment saying
he would have no problem fighting against Peru, if it were with the intent
of annexation.
Alicia (Bell Gardens), a naturalized citizen, said it would be very
difficult to fight against Mexico. She expressed the feeling that this was
her blood, her history, her religion. Perhaps, she pondered, she might
even fight against the U.S. She was joined in this opinion by Hilda (Bell
Gardens) and Nicolasas (Riverside)
Perhaps the most poignant remark was made by Salvador (Rialto)
who related that he had registered to fight in the Gulf War, but against
Mexico, it would be very difficult. He went on to say that if he were
asked to fight against Mexico he would go, but, possibly he wouldnt be
126 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


capable of killing a Mexican, and would simply allow himself to be killed
instead.
Summary
The purpose of conducting the focus group interviews was threefold:
to provide confirmation and clarification for the results of the
logistic regression,
to allow respondents to answer for themselves what they
mean when they identify themselves as Americans, or with
their countries of origin, and lastly
to explore issues which could not be addressed via the logistic
regression.
The focus groups accomplished these tasks.
The participants in the groups discussed freely, and openly shared
their opinions. Although, as noted above, the different questions often
prompted differing lines of thoughts among the participants, these lines of
thought were consistent from group to group, and were raised by the
participants themselves typically in response to only the principle question
asked by the moderator.
The focus group interviews were particularly useful in addressing the
questions left unanswered by the logistic regression of the previous
chapter. The logistic regression raised the question of why there should
be a negative correlation between membership in community
organizations and identification as American. As reported in this chapter,
one reason appears to be that individuals joining groups do so to some
extent to represent the Hispanic community and Hispanic interests. As
noted above, this action may be an American trait, but may actually serve
to strengthen ties to the Hispanic community. That voting was also
viewed as a manner of expressing the needs of the Hispanic community,
and hence an action which might strengthen ties to the Hispanic
community, may also be partially a reason why voting and political
Talking to the People 127



participation were not significant variables in predicting national self-
identification.
Reasons for becoming a citizen was a variable that was
significantly predictive of national self-identification in the logistic
regression. The reasons used to construct the variable for the logistic
regression, a strong desire to be a citizen, a desire to vote, and a desire to
participate more fully in American life, were in fact among the reasons
mentioned by participants in the focus groups. But there were many other
reasons also given for being in the United States, and these reasons were
given by individuals who later answered that they would be willing to
fight for the United States in an armed conflict. Those reasons could be
categorized as the opportunities that the United States has to offer.
But what about the central question of what it means to be an
American? As reported above, there were many diverse opinions, but
largely, for most of the participants involved, the definitions were not
political in nature, and those who identified themselves with their
countries of origin were identifying with the cultural aspects of those
countries. The comments made by participants indicating their distrust of
the governmental systems in their home countries, and even their
willingness to fight against the governments of their home countries, made
it clear there was no political connection there. This was a consistent
theme in all of the focus groups. When they spoke of being in the United
States, the participants often spoke of the opportunities this nation
afforded them: the opportunities for education, for economic prosperity,
and for a better way of life. Only on a few occasions did any of the
participants speak of the political freedoms available here. When they
spoke of their countries of origin, they spoke of the corruption, the
bribery, the lack of government stability. It is most likely that the
participants all understood that the prosperity available to them in this
country was largely possible due to the political situation here, but the
political aspects were not what they focused upon; the political aspects of
life in the U.S. were, aside from a few exceptions, never verbalized.
Overall then, when the participants in these focus groups identified
themselves as American or from their countries of origin, they were
128 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


referring to ethnic/racial or cultural concepts, not political concepts.
Specifically, those who identified with their countries of origin were
identifying with the people and the cultures of those countries, but not
with the governments. Conversely, the overwhelming willingness to
support the United States in armed conflict speaks to the political loyalty
of the majority of the participants in spite of the majority of the
participants identifying themselves with their countries of origin.


129
CHAPTER 5

Conclusions










This research began with the observation of an apparent inconsistency
between the behavior of Hispanic immigrants in Miami and Houston and
their expressed national self-identification. The inconsistency existed in
that individuals who expressed American values and behaviors (a desire to
live in the U.S., praise for living conditions here over their countries of
origin, a desire to improve their local communities, a desire to participate
in politically) nevertheless continued to identify with their countries of
origin. This paradox was further observed among respondents to the
National Latino Immigrant Survey (NLIS) who, although all legal
immigrants to the United States, split almost evenly on a national self-
identification question: some identifying themselves as Americans and
others identifying with their countries of origin.
This research has provided at least a partial resolution to this paradox.
In the introductory chapter it was suggested that the paradox was only a
paradox if the statements of identification with their countries of origin
made by the individuals in Miami and Houston, and by the respondents to
the NLIS were political in nature. It was proposed that perhaps these
statements were not political statements at all, but rather cultural in nature.
It was further proposed that if a minimum criteria were developed,
defining what it meant to be an American, the relationship between that
criteria and a respondents self-identified national identity (American or
country of origin) could help determine whether the statements of national
self-identity were political or cultural in nature. If the criteria were
130 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


adequate predictors of national self-identification then the argument that
the statements were political would be supported. If, however, the criteria
were not adequate predictors of national self-identification, if individuals
who fit the minimum criteria of being American nevertheless identified
with their countries of origin, then the political nature of their statements
regarding national self-identity would be called into question, and it might
be suspected that those expressions were expressions of cultural
preference instead.
What Is An American
To be able to explore the apparent paradox, it was important first to
develop a definition of what is an American. The intent was to use this
definition to test the NLIS respondents.
As noted in Chapter 2, the definition of who qualifies as American
has varied considerably over the years. This is perhaps most clearly
demonstrated in the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court over the
history of this nation. These decisions clearly demonstrated that although
at one time race, ethnicity, or culture were appropriate characteristics for
disqualifying individuals from being Americans (Dred Scott, Ping, Plessy
etc.). Those criteria are no longer legally acceptable for defining who is
an American (Shelly, Brown, Loving etc.). As Wilkinson wrote:
We stand before the law as equals. Its commands speak
to the citizen, not to his race. The Anglo American and
the Hispanic American pay the same taxes and obey the
same speed limits as the Asian American and the African
American. (Wilkinson 1997, 83)
Having determined what were not appropriate definitions of being
American, the chapter went on to describe concepts that were appropriate
criteria. Using the writings of political scholars, political commentators,
historical political figures, and Supreme Court opinions, four concepts
were proposed: 1) Belief in the American System of Government, 2)
participating in voluntary organizations, 3) participation in the
political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient to be able to
participate in the political process.
53
These criteria were not proposed as
an absolute definition of being American, but rather more as describing
the minimum threshold of what it means to be an American. The
Conclusions 131


reasoning was that if this definition were going to be used to examine the
attitudes and opinions of Hispanic immigrants, then a minimum threshold
would serve that purpose. If at this minimum threshold differences were
observed between those who identified themselves as Americans and
those who identified with their countries of origin, then we could
reasonably infer that those differences would exist under more stringent
criteria.
The Logistic Regression
Ten variables constructed from the NLIS data were used to operationalize
the four criteria developed in Chapter 2. The operationalized criteria were
then used in a logistic regression with national self-identity as the
dependent variable. As was discussed in Chapter 3, the logistic regression
results demonstrated that not all of the criteria developed in Chapter 2
were good predictors of whether respondents in the NLIS would identify
themselves as Americans, or with their countries of origin. It was
particularly noteworthy that variables such as Citizenship (a control
variable), English Language Proficiency, Participation in Political
Activities or Voting, and most of the variables associated with belief in
the American system of government were not good predictors of national
self-identification.
Only four of the variables used to operationalize the criteria from
Chapter 2 were statistically sound predictors of national self-
identification. Two of the variables which were good predictors
(Importance of Citizenship, and Reasons for not Becoming a Citizen) do
appear to support the connection between political concepts and national
self-identification. However, the same cannot be said of the other
variables. Although Language Preference, for example, was a good
predictor of national self-identity, the fact that English Language Ability
was not a good predictor called into question the validity of using
language preference as an indicator of being American. Although these
concepts have been used together jointly in past research (Garza 1996) the
large disparity in their predictive abilities in this research calls the
approach into question, at least when addressing issues of national self-
identification. The predictive value of the Language Preference variable
may actually then strengthen the argument that the expressions of national
132 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


self-identification were cultural in nature, particularly when it is
remembered that language preference is a key indicator of maintaining
culture as noted by Keefe and Padilla (Keefe and Padilla 1987).
Memberships in community organizations, an archetypal American
characteristic observed by writers from Tocqueville to Putnam, turned out
to be significant, but negatively associated with national self-
identification. Thus, NLIS respondents exhibiting more of the
American characteristic of being involved in community organizations
were in fact more likely to identify with their countries of origin, all other
variables being held constant. Thus although predictive of national self-
identity, it certainly was not predictive in a manner that supports the
connection between the developed criteria and national self-identification.
Thus only two of the 10 variables used to operationalize the criteria
developed in Chapter 2 can be said to be supportive of a positive
connection between the developed definition of what it means to be an
American, and a respondents actual self-identification as either an
American or a member of their country of origin. Overall, these results
would support the hypothesis that the respondents statements of national
self-identification are not political in nature, but rather cultural.
The Focus Groups
The results from the focus groups gave additional support to the
hypothesis that the statements of national self-identification among
Hispanic immigrants are cultural rather than political in nature. From the
focus groups we learned that although some of the respondents thought of
being Americans in political terms (Daniel - Bell Gardens, Edgar - Bell
Gardens, Elijia - Chino), others thought of being American in terms of it
being a mind set (Frank - Bell Gardens, Juan 2 - Chino, Gilbert - Provo,
Elvia - Provo). But most described it in either cultural or ethnic/racial
terms (Peter - Rialto, Magdalena - Rialto, Hilda - Bell Gardens, Rosa 1 -
Riverside, Alberto - Chino, etc.)
Perhaps more important, however, was how respondents described
their relationships to their countries of origin. Although clearly referring
to their countries of origin with fondness and often longing, it was clear
that, other than for the very rare exception, the participants in the focus
groups were here in the United States to stay. Beyond merely being here
Conclusions 133


to stay, it was clear that for most they had made a commitment to make
this their home, to support their families in adapting to life here, to raise
their children here, and to defend this nation through the force of arms if
necessary. Comments such as those from Pete (Chino), Liz (Chino) or
Javier (Provo) who said they would fight against their home countries not
only because of an obligation to the United States, but to overthrow the
governments in their homelands are illustrative of the fact that the
attachment these respondents felt in identifying themselves with their
homelands was not an attachment to the political structure, but rather an
attachment to their culture, their people, and their extended families still
residing there. Although there were those who, like Alicia (Bell Gardens),
indicated they might return and fight with their homelands against the
United States, these individuals were again the very rare exception. And
even then, the reasoning was not political, as Alicia (Bell Gardens) stated
to fight against Mexico would be to fighting against her blood, her history,
her religion.
Consistently, it appears that these were the attachments which were
most critical to the participants in the focus groups: the attachments of
family, of blood, and of culture. So it was not surprising that when
participating in community organizations, or even in political
participation, it was often done for the benefit of the family and the
broader Hispanic community.
As observed at the end of the Chapter 4, when focus group
participants spoke about being in the United States, they most often spoke
of the opportunities this nation afforded them. Only on a few occasions
did the participants speak in political terms. When they spoke of their
countries of origin, they only spoke in political terms when mentioning
negative perceptions of the government such as the corruption, the
bribery, the lack of government stability that existed in their native
countries. When they spoke with fondness of their native lands, they
spoke of family, friends, culture, and heritage.
Summary
Both the results of the logistic regression and the results of the focus
groups support the conclusion that most often when Hispanic immigrants
respond to the question of how they identify themselves, they are using
134 Hispanic Immigrant Identity


cultural not political terms. There are some individuals in the focus
groups who viewed being American in political terms in that they value
the political freedoms available in the United States, and specifically
mentioned their commitment to the U.S. made either implicitly by
choosing to reside here, or explicitly by having taken an oath of
citizenship. However, in light of the overall findings from the focus group
discussion, it would appear that the strongest reasons for Hispanic
immigrants identifying with their countries of origin are familial and
cultural, not political. The implication here is that when the news shows a
demonstration of a Hispanic group here in the U.S. waving flags of their
home countries, they are not expressing loyalty to their home country over
the U.S., but rather they are expressing their identity as a cultural group
within the U.S. Just as marching in a St. Patricks Day parade does not
necessarily express allegiance to Ireland, marching in a Cinco de Mayo
parade does not necessarily express allegiance to Mexico.
Suggestion for Further Research
Although there are many areas which might call for additional research,
only two will be mentioned here.
First, it is important to remember that both the National Latino
Immigrant Survey and this research are cross-sectional in nature and not
longitudinal. They are snapshots in time of what is unquestionably a
dynamic process. Certainly attitudes in the United States about what it
means to be an American have undergone dramatic change in the course
of time in which some of the NLIS and focus group participants have
resided here. Five of the Supreme Court decisions broadening the
definition of who qualifies to be an American have happened in the last 50
years. The Unites States has gone through periods of intense, some might
argue virtually paranoid, patriotism with anti-communist feelings, and
through periods of self-questioning and questioning of government intent
as during Vietnam. Similarly, for ethnic minorities there was a time when
there were great efforts were made to appear to be white, as when Blacks
used hair straighteners and skin lighteners. Then there came a time when
it was not only acceptable to be ethnic, but to some extent it became a
symbol of pride or political power (Black is beautiful, Chicano Power,
etc.). It would be difficult to imagine that these changing patterns within
the broader American socio-politcal culture have not affected and will not
Conclusions 135


continue to affect immigrant attitudes toward their adopted nation. A
series of cross-sectional studies will not address this issue adequately.
What is truly needed is a longitudinal study with a panel of participants.
Second, Dahl expresses a concern over a situation which he describes
as hyper-egoism in which there is a fragmentation and concern for either
the individual or for a subgroup of society rather for the whole of society.
(Dahl 1996, 9-10). The negative association between memberships in
community organizations and identification with the U.S. revealed in the
logistic regression, as well as the results of the focus groups might lead to
speculation that Dahls fears are being realized. I do not believe this to be
the case, however. Although there are some who clearly view their
community as being at odds with the broader community, as the young
man who expressed in graphic terms his disapproval of the governments
actions in the Elian Ramirez case
54
, overall there appears to be a
willingness to work within the system and be part of the nation.
Nevertheless, this is an area that merits additional research.
Conclusion
In 1996, I received an email from Jerold Pearson, Director of Market
Research at Stanford University, in which he gave the following quotation
from Kurt Vonneguts Mother Night. People are insane. They will do
anything at any time, and God help anybody who looks for reasons.
In this case, however, we may have found a reason. In the
introductory chapter it was stated that the paradox, was only a paradox if
the statements Hispanic immigrants made in identifying with their
countries of origin were political in nature. The results of the logistic
regression and the focus groups would lead to the conclusion that when
Hispanic immigrants identify with their countries of origin they are most
likely expressing cultural preference, not political identity.
America is a nation built by immigrants. Americans have also
historically viewed the newest wave of immigrants with suspicion and
concern. Perhaps, this is the next paradox which should be examined.
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0

137
Footnotes









1
Both the definition of what it means to be an American, and what
the respondents meant in declaring that they had no intentions of becoming
American are key concepts which will be more fully discussed below.
2
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, Overview of Race and
Hispanic Origin, by Elizabeth M. Grieco, and Rachel C. Cassidy.
(Washington, D.C., 2001), 3.
3
Table ST-EST2002-ASRO-03 - State Characteristic Estimates
Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau Release Date: September, 18,
2003
4
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-206,
Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, by Dianne
Schmidley. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), 24.
5
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P20-539, The
Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2002, by Dianne
Schmidley. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003), 2.
6
The most current compiled source of public opinion polling data on
this issue is Karlyn H Bowman, AEI Studies in Public Opinion, America After
9/11: Public Opinion on The War on Terrorism, The War with Iraq, and
America"s Place in the World, (American Enterprise Institute, 2004) [on-line];
154.
7
See Reginald Horsman Race and Manifest Destiny.
138 Footnotes


8
Of course, the growth of the immigrant Hispanic population does
not in and of itself mean that the paradox will continue. Certainly, each era of
immigration has its own peculiar characteristics, and the conditions
surrounding the immigrants" arrival in the U.S. also greatly affect the
assimilation of the immigrant (Portes and Zhou 1993, 75). However,
understanding the factors that have contributed to the existence of this paradox
among current Hispanic immigrants could aid us in understanding the paradox,
if it exists, among future Hispanic immigrants.
9
Although it is common to refer to a Hispanic culture, several
scholars have questioned the actual existence of a pan-"Hispanic" culture,
noting the many differences in the cultures covered under the Hispanic
umbrella (Nelson and Tienda, 1985).
10
The tone of Wilkinson"s statement conveys his feelings and
concern that this is not a positive change for the makeup of the American
population. This concern conveys an assumption that somehow, the post 1790
immigrants are different than, and apparently less desirable than the pre-1790
immigrants.
11
This question was asked of a national sample of persons 18 or
older. There were 1,255 valid responses distributed as follows: 60% good,
34% bad, 3% neither, and 3% not sure.
12
Survey conducted by Hart and Teeter Research Companies.
Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,213 adults. Respondents were
asked When it comes to immigration in the United States, to you think that our
country is too open to immigrants from other countries, too closed to
immigrants from other countries, or does our country strike the right balance in
accepting immigrants from other countries? Fifty-one percent responded too
open, 7% too closed, 37% about right, and 5% indicated not sure (available
from Public Agenda Online <http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/
angles_graph.cfm?issue_type= immigration&id=258&graph=pcc5.gif>, [15
March 2000]). It is curious to note that only six months later, Governor Tom
Vilsack of Iowa announced an effort to encourage immigrants to settle in Iowa
to help boost a declining population (Available at CNN.Com
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/04/iowa.meltingpot.ap/index.html>, [4
September 2000]).

Footnotes 139


13
General Social Survey 2000, variable name letin.
14
Survey Organization: Gallup Organization, sponsored by CNN and
USA Today. On-line available from Public Agenda 2004.
15
General Social Survey 2000, variable name immunite.
16
Undocumented residents pose a unique quandary in that they
benefit by residence in the community, and they provide benefits to the
community, yet they are clearly without the law in their residence status. What
could and should be required of them during their tenure in the United States is
indeed an interesting question, however, since the data we are using
specifically is limited to legal residents, our discussions will also be limited to
legal residents.
17
The Spanish and the French were also encountered during the
initial westward expansion, but they are not the focus of this research, and,
therefore, will not be included in this discussion.
18
Lest it be thought that these are attitudes of a past era, it should be
noted that in online response to a discussion on immigration on the Provo
Herald"s web site (Harktheherald.com) an individual posted the following
comment on May 24, 2004: Ever wonder why Mexico is a third world
country? Because it's full of Mexicans!
19
It is important not to overlook Huntington"s inclusion of language
and habits (culture) in his list of qualifiers for being American. The use of
language and culture as criteria for being American will be discussed later in
this chapter.
20
This was recently illustrated in a discussion I had with a colleague
from Texas. I mentioned to him that I had met many Anglo individuals who
had immigrated from other states to Texas, and who now considered
themselves and were considered by their neighbors to be Texans. I queried him
as to whether I, being of Mexican heritage, if upon moving to Texas could ever
become considered a Texan. He replied, with some embarrassment, that I
could never be a Texan; I would always be a Mexican.

140 Footnotes


21
Although not asking specifically about immigrants, results from the
2002 General Social Survey lend additional support to this line of thought.
Respondents were asked if members of ethnic minorities must better adapt to
the ways of mainstream American culture in order to have a smoothly
functioning society. Sixty percent agreed or strongly agreed.
22
This is interestingly the same basic argument made by authors such
as Cubberley and Roberts (cited above) regarding immigrants in the early
1900's.
23
Although these amendments were theoretically designed to create a
more inclusive definition of American, it is noteworthy that the wording of
the Fourteenth Amendment specifies penalties only when male inhabitants
are denied the franchise. It also continues to exclude Indians not taxed from
inclusion in the calculations of congressional seat apportionments. Women
were not guaranteed the right to vote until 1920, and Native Americans were
not granted citizenship until 1924.
24
Justice Harlan in his dissenting opinion commented on the
functional effect of the decision in its relation to quasi-state action.
25
Source: Patrick Air Force Base history page,
<http://www.pafb.af.mil/DEOMI/ hisp.htm>, [11 October 2000]. Medal of
Honor Statistics available from <http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohstats.htm>,
[11October 2000], and World Book Encyclopedia, 1988 ed., s.v. Vietnam
war. See also Department of Defense, Defense Link web site at
<http://www.defenselink.mil/, particularly http://www.defenselink.mil/
specials/hispanic/recipients1.html which lists all 37 Hispanic Medal of Honor
recipients.
26
Plessy, discussed earlier, was decided after Strauder, but, much to
the surprise of some Supreme Court observers, circumvented the Strauder
ruling by stating that laws segregating the races did not automatically imply a
superior/inferior relationship between the races. Harlan"s dissent in Plessy, as
previously cited, found this line of reasoning essentially ludicrous.
27
In Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), the court continued
and expanded this course of action ruling that a California statute giving
owners of real property the right to refuse to sell, lease or rent that property to
Footnotes 141


any person at their discretion violated the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
28
The Court here is quoting from Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
(1886) wherein Justice Mathews giving the majority opinion for the Court
writes, The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not
regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by
society, according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is
regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights
[118 U.S. 356, 370].
29
A modest example of this might be the reaction of the Cuban
community to the INS intervention in the Elian Gonzalez case. After Elian was
forcibly removed from his Great Uncle"s home in Miami, in compliance with
instructions from the U.S. Attorney General, demonstrators on the street
expressed their outrage at the federal government. One demonstrator in his
wrath shouted, F*** this country! He was placing the desires of his
community above his loyalty to the nation. It is also important to note,
however, that although there is in this community great Cuban solidarity, it is
loyalty to a Cuba that does not exist outside of the boundaries of the United
States.
30
The questioning of an individual"s loyalty to country is a serious
matter, and great caution should be taken that investigations deal with issues of
loyalty, not race or ethnicity. The activities of German-American clubs prior to
World War I in which they openly supported Germany against France and
Britain, was a clear cause for political concern. On the other hand, the
Korematsu case in World War II, cited above, did not consider political loyalty
at all, only race.
31
Conversely, Americans were much less likely to mention pride in
the physical characteristics of the American people, physical features of the
nation, or national contributions to the arts as compared to members of these
other countries. In the introduction to this book we raised the possibility that
NLIS respondents were expressing cultural preference rather than political
allegiance when they indicated identification with countries of origin. These
results support this possibility. If citizens of other countries identify first with
cultural or other aspects of their nations rather than with their political systems,
it suggests the possibility that immigrants to the U.S. when expressing
142 Footnotes


identification to their countries of origin are, in fact, expressing identification
with the cultural aspects of their native countries.
32
See also James W. Prothro and Charles M. Grigg Fundamental
Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement Journal of
Politics 22 (February 1960): 282-86, Herbert McClosky AConsensus and
Ideology in American Politics, American Political Science Review 58 (June
1964): 365-68. Devine, Political Culture, pp. 179-230, and Frank R. Westie,
The American Dilemma: An Empirical Test, American Sociological Review
30 (August 1965): 531-32.
33
Interestingly he uses B.H. Roberts, Representative from Utah as an
example. Specifically he notes that even though Roberts was a member of
Congress, he was still only allowed to have one wife, clearly a reference to
earlier polygamist Mormon practices. More than merely an interesting side
note, this indicates that Brewer"s definitions of good character were based on
traditional Christian concepts.
34
By nobility here Dahl means selflessness.
35
Janowitz does note a particular problem in recognizing voluntary
associations as a civic virtue, however. He contends that given an expectation
of political advocacy in democracies, some differentiation must be made
regarding the extent to which voluntary associations are seeking rights,
privileges, or benefits as opposed to seeking the public welfare (Janowitz
1980, 16-17). For this analysis, given that both political participation and
showing concern for community welfare are viewed as positive American
traits, then participation in a voluntary association with either political or
community interests in mind qualifies as an indicator of being American.
36
Although there are those who believe that Putnam"s measure of
civic engagement is incorrect, they are not in disagreement as to the importance
of civic engagement, which is the point being made here.
37
This question has not been repeated in the General Social Survey.
38
The 2000 General Social Survey also asked respondents regarding
making English the official language of the United States, but only offered two
response categories, Favor or Oppose, thus that variable is not directly
comparable on this table.
Footnotes 143


39
For ease of reference, these four points will hereafter be referred to
as four criteria and will subsequently be listed as: 1) belief in the American
system of government, 2) participating in voluntary organizations, 3)
participation in the political/electoral process, and 4) learning English sufficient
to be able to participate in the political process.
40
The rationale for this scaling is based on the concepts of the
importance of learning and using English as a marker of being American
developed in the previous chapter. Thus, if an individual prefers to use Spanish
for one of the listed activities, it could be interpreted as a negative indicator to
their being American. Conversely, if they prefer to use English, it could be
interpreted as a positive indicators to their being American. If the respondents
indicate they use both languages, they have been given a zero score because the
use of both languages does not clearly indicate a preference toward or away
from being American. Similarly, if the respondents indicate they did not
participate in a particular activity, it is scored as a zero because their non-
participation in that activity provides no measure of preference on that item
toward or away from being American by this definition.
41
The items here are phrased in such a manner that a score of 4
reflects greater identification with country of origin, whereas a score of 4 on
one of the previous questions reflected a greater identification with the U.S. It
would not be unusual in such situations to reverse the coding of the responses
so that positive numbers always reflected greater identification to the U.S.
However, allowing the items to retain their original coding actually makes them
more easily read and understood in the factor analysis and logistic regression
results. In these procedures the original coding produces negative values,
which is exactly what is expected when the name of the variable is read.
42
Two levels of income were also significant at the p .10 level.
These were income level 3 - $801 to $1200 a month, and income level 5
$1,500 to $2,000 a month. Overall, however, the income variable had a
significance level of p = .6927.
43
Because Income was entered as a categorical variable, SPSS
calculates no overall value. See table 7 for the values for each of the
income categories.

144 Footnotes


44
As previously noted, the respondents in the NLIS were legal
Hispanic immigrants who had been in the United States for five or more years.
45
Bell Gardens has a concentration of Hispanics very similar to
Huntington Park. This group included participants from Huntington Park, Bell
Gardens, Commerce, East Los Angeles, Central Los Angeles, and Montebello.
46
These are not the real names of the participants. The discussion of
how pseudonyms were selected for the respondents is given in the section
entitles Focus Group Results below.
47
A variable for years in the United States was not part of the
original NLIS data set, but rather was calculated by subtracting the
respondent"s year of immigration from 1988, the year of the survey. Using this
method of calculation, four individuals in the data set appear to have been in
the United States less than five years. This would appear to violate the
inclusion criteria for the NLIS that respondents have been in the U.S. for 5 or
more years. However, a provision in the screening questions allowed
individuals who had been married for three years or more to someone who has
been a U.S. citizen for three years or more, to participate in the study. In all
four cases in question, the individuals were or had been married, and given
their inclusion in the data set I assume the original study appropriately qualified
them, and hence they were not eliminate from this examination.
48
During the recruitment process, all of the participants had been
informed as to the nature and purpose of the focus group. In effect, this was a
re-explanation and clarification of the project and gave the participants an
opportunity to ask any questions they might have had about the purpose of the
focus group interviews.
49
An interesting and important issue was raised by members in five
of the six groups regarding the phrasing of this question. It was pointed out by
at least one person in each of the five groups, whereas from the point of view of
individuals in the United States, being American is synonymous with being
from the United States; outside the U.S. many individuals identify anyone from
the either the North or South American continents as being American. Three
individuals, one each in Salt Lake, Chino, and Provo, expressed what could be
fairly described as feelings of indignation that residents of the U.S. had
misappropriate the term Americans to refer to only themselves to the
Footnotes 145


exclusion of other nations on these continents. Having anticipated this
possibility, I was prepared to diffuse the issue by agreeing the usage was
technically incorrect, but stating that for the purposes of this study, we could
agree to use the common usage. Everyone quickly agreed.

50
No me quita el nopal literally means - it doesn"t remove the
cactus from me. This is a reference to the heritage symbol of the cactus
emblem on the Mexican flag. This is not an expression of political loyalty to
the Mexican flag, but rather to the Mexican culture. The English idiomatic
equivalent would be to say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you
can=t take the country out of the boy.

51
Often, when drawing some link to the U.S., participants made
comments about their children having been born or being raised here.

52
Although the word citizenship was specifically used, the feelings
seemed to imply residency in the U.S., and not exclusively citizenship.

53
It is an interesting observation that three of these four criteria were
manifest by the individuals interviewed in the pre-study focus group interviews
in Miami and Houston: 1) belief in the American system of government as
manifest by their decisions to immigrate and obtain legal residence in the
United States, 2) an expressed desire to participate in community affairs, and 3)
and expressed desire to participate politically to improve their communities.

54
Disapproval of government action is certainly not limited to the
Hispanic community. Others with very disparate points of view, such as
Vietnam era protestors or pro-life demonstrators, have forcefully and
sometimes violently disagreed with the government"s official position on
various issues.
!"#$ &'() #*+)*+#,*'--. left /-'*0

147
Bibliography










1992 American National Election Study. Available from National
Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of
Michigan. <http://www.umich.edu /~nes>. [9 March 1999]
1998 American National Election Study. Available from National
Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of
Michigan. <http://www.umich.edu /~nes>. [9 March 1999]
Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1965. The Civic Culture.
Boston: Little, Brown.
American Heritage Foundation. 1948. Good citizen : the rights and
duties of an American. New York: American Heritage
Foundation.
Auster, Lawrence. 1995. Them vs. Unz; special letters section. Policy
Review. 71 (Winter) 88.
Bellah, Robert. 1975. The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion
in Time of Trial. New York: Seabury Press.
Bergquist, James M. 1992. German-Americans. In Multiculturalism in
the United States, eds. John D. Buenker and Lorman A.
Ratner, 53-76 . New York: Greenwood Press.
148 Bibliography


Bowman, Karlyn H. 2004. America After 9/11: Public Opinion on The
War on Terrorism, The War with Iraq, and Americas Place in
the World, AEI Studies in Public Opinion, Papers and Studies,
AEI Online, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.
Brewer, David J. 1902. American Citizenship. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press.
Broome, Edwin C., Edwin W. Adams. 1926. Conduct and Citizenship.
New York: The MacMillan Company.
Bridges, Horace J. 1919. On Becoming an American. Boston:
Marshall Jones Company.
Briggs, Asa. 1966. Saxons, Normans and Victorians. London:
London Historical Association.
Brimelow, Peter. 1995. Alien Nation: Common Sense about Americas
Immigration Disaster. New York: Random House.
Brubaker, Rogers, 1993. Migrants into citizens? Traditions of
nationhood and politics of citizenship in france and Germany.
In Sociology and the Public Agenda, ed. William Julius
Wilson, 73-96. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Buenker, John D., and Lorman A. Ratner. 1992. Multiculturalism in
the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.
Bushnell, Horace. 1837. The true wealth or weal of nations. In
Representative Phi Beta Kappa Orations, eds. Northup, Clark
S., William C. Lane and John C. Schwab, 1-12. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1915.
The California Poll. 1988. Study 8801, Question 67, February.
Available from the Institute for Research in the Social Science
<http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/ 23:46:38:1.htm>. [8
August 2000].
Bibliography 149


Carlson, Robert A. 1987. The Americanization Syndrome: A Quest for
Conformity. London: Croom Helm.
Chase, Harold W., Craig R. Ducat. 1979. Constitutional
Interpretation. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.
Chavez, Leo. 1997. Official English as nativist backlash. In
Immigrants Out! ed. Juan F. Perea, 61-77. New York: New
York University Press.
Citrin, Jack, Ernst B. Haas, Christopher Muste, and Beth Reingold.
1994. Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for
Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly. 38 (March)
1-31.
Clark, Dennis. 1992. Irish-Americans. In Multiculturalism in the
United States, eds. John D. Buenker and Lorman A. Ratner,
53-76 . New York: Greenwood Press.
Cubberley, Ellwood P. 1909. Changing Conceptions of Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Dahl, Robert A. 1996. Is civic virtue a relevant ideal in a pluralist
democracy? In Diversity and Citizenship, eds. Gary Jeffrey
Jacobsohn and Susan Dunn, 1-16. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
De Koven, Mrs. Reginald. 1923. A Primer of Citizenship. New York:
E.P. Dutton & Company.
Dewey, John. 1916. Nationalizing Education. Addresses and
Proceedings of the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting. National
Education Association of the United States. Washington, D.C.
D'innocenzo, Michael and Josef P. Sirefman. 1992. Immigration and
Ethnicity. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
150 Bibliography


Eastland, Terry and William J. Bennett. 1979. Counting by Race :
Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber.
New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community. New York: Crown
Publisher, Inc.
Espenshade, Thomas J. and Katherine Hempstead. 1996.
Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration.
International Migration Review. 30 (Summer) 535-70.
Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1990. The American Kaleidoscope. London:
Wesleyan University Press.
Fulford, James. 2004. Minding the Golden Door: Toward a
Restrictionism that can Succeed. [online] available through
VDARE.com.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups
and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2/1: 1-20.
Garza, Rodolfo O. de la. 1996. Will the real American please stand
up: anglo and Mexican-American support of core American
political values. American Journal of Political Science. 40:2
(May): 335-51.
Gates, Henry Louis Jr. 1995. Back and James Brown: on honoring
Blackness. The American Enterprise. 6 (Sept./Oct): 49.
General Social Survey. 1994. Available at
<http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/>. [9 March 1999]
Glazer, Nathan. 1996. Reflections on citizenship and diversity. In
Diversity and Citizenship, eds. Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn and
Susan Dunn, 85-100. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Bibliography 151


Gleason, Philip. 1984. Pluralism and assimilation: a conceptual
history. In Linguistic Minorities: Policies and Pluralism, ed.
John Edwards, 221-257. New York: Academic Press.
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk. New York: The Free Press.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of
Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Grund, Francis Joseph. 1837. The Americans in Their Moral, Social,
and Political Relations. Boston: March, Capen and Lyon.
Hardy-Fanta, Carol. 1993. Latina Politics, Latino Politics: Gender,
Culture, and Political Participation in Boston. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Hartman, Edward George. 1967. The Movement to Americanize the
Immigrant. New York: AMS Press, Inc. Original Edition,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1948.
Louis Harris and Associates Polls. 1992. Study S921204. Available at
<http://www.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/ 20:26:45:1.htm>. [9 May
1999]
Harrington, M. 1980. Loyalty: Dual and Divided. In The Harvard
Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Ed. Stephan
Thernstrom, 676-86. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Hepner, Walter R., and Frances K. Hepner. 1924. The Good Citizen.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant-Catholic-Jew. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Horsman, Reginald 1981. Race and Manifest Destiny. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
152 Bibliography


Huntington, Samuel P. 1981. American Politics: The Promise of
Disharmony. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
Jacobsohn, Gary Jeffrey and Susan Dunn. 1996. Diversity and
Citizenship. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.
Janoski, Thomas. 2000. Citizenship and Civil Society. New York:
Cambridge University Press,
Janowitz, Morris. 1980. Observations on the sociology of citizenship:
obligations and rights. Social Forces, 59:1 (September): 1-
24.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1984. Writings. Compiled by Peterson, Merrill D.
New York: Viking Press.
Kallen, Horace. 1924. Culture and Democracy in the United States.
New York: Boni and Liveright.
Keefe, Susan E., and Amado M. Padilla. 1987. Chicano Ethnicity.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Kettner, James H. 1978. The Development of American Citizenship,
1608-1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kolasky, Bob. 1997. Issue of the week: a Nation of Immigrants.
Available from Intellectual Capital.Com at
<http://www.IntellectualCapital.com>. [6 February 1997].
Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman. 1994. Return of the Citizen: A
Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory. Ethics. 104
(January): 352-381. Chicago.: University of Chicago Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. New York: Oxford
University Press Inc.
Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Unhyphenated whites in the United States.
Ethnic and Racial Studies. 8 (January) 159-80.
Bibliography 153


Lincoln, Abraham. 1947. The Lincoln Reader. Edited by Paul M.
Angle. New Brunswick, Conn.: Rutgers University Press.
Marshall, T.H. 1973. Class, Citizenship and Social Development.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Morgan, David L., and Richard A. Krueger. 1998. The Focus Group
Kit. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.
Muller, Thomas. 1997. Nativism in the mid-1990's. In Immigrants
Out!, ed. Juan F. Perea, 105-18. New York: New York
University Press.
Nelson, Candace, and Marta Tienda. 1985. Structuring of Hispanic
ethnicity: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 8 (Jan): pp 49-74.
Novak, Michael. 1973. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Pachon, Harry, and Louis DeSipio. 1994. New Americans by Choice.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Perea, Juan F. ed. 1997. Immigrants Out! New York: New York
University Press.
Petersen, William. 1997. Ethnicity Counts. New Brunswick, Conn.:
Transaction Publishers.
Pinkerton, John. 1787. A Dissertation on the Origin and Progress of
the Scythians or Goths. Being an introduction to the ancient
and modern history of Europe. London: G. Nicol.
Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1995 to 2025, Census Bureau PPL-47, October, 1996.
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubn G. Rumbaut. 1990. Immigrant America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
154 Bibliography


Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. The New Second Generation:
Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530
(November): 74-96.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1994. Should Immigrants
Assimilate. The Public Interest, 116 (Summer): 18-33.
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: Americas declining social
capital. Journal of Democracy, 6:1 (January): 65-78
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Reynolds, John F. Reynolds. 1988. Testing Democracy: Electoral
Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880-1920.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
Roberts, Kenneth L. 1922. Why Europe Leaves Home. London: T.
Fisher Unwin, Ltd.
Rossiter, Clinton. ed. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York:
Penguin Inc.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. 1992. The Disuniting of America. New
York: W.W. Norton
Sellers, James. 1970. Public Ethics : American Morals and Manners.
New York: Harper & Row.
Shklar, Judith N. 1991. American Citizenship, The Quest for Inclusion.
Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Smith, Rogers M. 1988. The American Creed and American
identity: the limits of liberal citizenship in the United States.
The Western Political Quarterly. 41 (June): 225-51.
-------- 1997. Civic Ideals. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Bibliography 155


Smith, Tom W. 1980. Ethnic measurement and identification.
Ethnicity. 7 (March) 78-95.
Sons of the American Revolution. 1911. Official Bulletin. 2 (Oct.
1911): 2.
Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1990.
Cultural Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1984. Democracy in America. Edited by
Richard D. Heffner. New York: Mentor.
Tilly, Louise A. and Patricia Gurin, eds. 1990. Women, Politics, and
Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
UCLA Academic Technology Services. 2000. SPSS Frequently Asked
Questions B What does Cronbachs Alpha Mean? Available
[Online] <www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/ faq/alpha.html>. [16
January 2001].
Ungar, Sanford. 1995. Fresh Blood: The New American Immigrants.
New York : Simon & Schuster.
U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform. 1995. Legal Immigration:
Setting Priorities. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
U.S. Congress. House. 1790. 1
st
Cong., 2d sess. Annals of Congress
1 (3-4 February).
U.S. Congress. House. 1794. 3
rd
Cong., 2d sess. Annals of Congress
4 (22 December).
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1845. 28
th
Cong., 2d sess. Congressional
Globe 85 Appendix (21-22 February).
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1848. 30
th
Cong., 1
st
sess. Congressional
Globe 89 (2 January).
156 Bibliography


U.S. Congress. Senate. 1896. 54
th
Cong., 1
st
sess. Congressional
Record. 28, pt. 3, (16 March).
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Refugee Policy. 1981. The Final Report
and Recommendations of the Select Commission on
Immigration and Refugee Policy. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, Overview of Race and
Hispanic Origin, by Elizabeth M. Grieco, and Rachel C.
Cassidy. Washington, DC, 2001.
-------- Current Population Reports, Series P20-539. The Foreign-Born
Population in the United States: March 2002, by Dianne
Schmidley. Washington, D.C. 2003.
-------- Current Population Reports, Series P23-206. Profile of the
Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, by
Dianne Schmidley. Washington, DC. 2001.
Walzer, Michael. 1990. What Does it Mean to be an American?
Social Research. 57 (Fall): 591-614.
Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Wilkinson, J. Harvie III. 1997. One Nation Indivisible. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Wrinkle, Robert D., Joseph Stewart, Jr., J.L. Polinard, Kenneth J.
Meier, John R. Arvizu. 1996. Ethnicity and Nonelectoral
Political Participation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 18:2 (May): 142-153.



157
Index









Almond 39, 65, 147
American Heritage Foundation
72, 147
Americans are Not Truly a
People 40
Anglo 1, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28,
34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 52,
56, 60, 117, 118, 130, 139
Anglo-Americans 19
Ascriptive Criteria 29, 50, 51
Auster 14, 147
backward elimination process
95, 96, 98
belief in the American system
of government viii, 62, 79,
81, 82, 87, 90, 92, 100, 131,
143, 145
Bergquist 26, 52, 147
Brewer 16, 23, 27, 31, 58, 66,
142, 148
Bridges 26, 60, 61, 62, 148
Briggs 19, 148
Brimelow 25, 28, 148
Broome 72, 148
Brown v. Board of Education
46, 51
Buckley 71
Bushnell 20, 148
California Poll 24, 74, 148
Carlson 18, 25, 28, 42, 63, 149
Chavez 4, 5, 149
Chinese Exclusion Case 31
Citrin 74, 149
Clark 36, 148, 149
Congress 21, 29, 30, 31, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 66, 142, 155
Cubberley 22, 140, 149
cultural factors 7, 25
culture 4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 79, 99,
106, 115, 116, 117, 130,
132, 133, 135, 138, 139,
140, 145
Dahl 27, 53, 67, 135, 142, 149
De Koven 72, 149
Dewey 59, 149
Dred Scott 29, 30, 50, 130
English only 76
Espenshade and Hempstead
13
ethnicity and race 17, 18, 21,
25, 33, 34, 37, 42, 52
Ethnocentric 38
158 Index


Etzioni 71, 150
Factor Analysis 91
Focus Group Organization 104
Focus Group Participant
Selection Criteria 105
Focus Group Results 114, 144
Fourteenth Amendment 31, 42,
43, 44, 45, 48, 79, 140, 141
Franklin 18, 36, 39, 54, 55
Fuchs 18, 39, 57, 58, 64, 65,
150
Gallup poll 14
Gates 59, 150
General Social Survey 14, 74,
76, 77, 78, 139, 140, 143,
150
Glazer 16, 25, 74, 150
Gleason 27, 151
Glendon 71, 151
Gordon 19, 26, 38, 56, 57, 58,
59, 74, 151
Grovey 32, 33, 42, 44, 50
Grund 63, 64, 151
GSS 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 150
Hardy-Fanta 69, 151
Harlan 32, 140
Harrington 40, 52, 53, 65, 151
Harris 14, 151
Hartman 21, 57, 73, 151
Hepners 72
Herberg 24, 151
Hirabayashi 33, 41, 51
Hirabayashi v. United States
33
Hispanics 4, 28, 41, 105, 144
Horsman 17, 18, 20, 138, 151,
161
Huntington 7, 8, 20, 25, 54,
56, 61, 62, 63, 65, 105, 139,
144, 152
Interview Questions 111
Jacobsohn 39, 55, 149, 150,
152
Jacobsohn, Jeffery, and Dunn
39
Janoski 68, 72, 152
Janowitz 16, 69, 142, 152
Jefferson 19, 152
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
48, 51
Kallen 38, 39, 42, 58, 59, 152
Katzenbach v. Morgan 47, 51
Kennedy 36
Kluckhohn 56
Kolasky 13, 152
Korematsu 33, 41, 51, 141
Kymlicka 13, 28, 40, 60, 70,
152
language 9, 18, 21, 26, 30, 40,
54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 73, 74,
76, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 90,
99, 100, 107, 109, 115, 117,
131, 139, 143
Language of the Focus Groups
107
learning English viii, 62, 68,
73, 80, 81, 82, 130, 143
Learning English 73, 85
Lincoln 21, 64, 153
Lipset 56
Lodge 30
Los Angeles Times 24
Loving v. Virginia 47, 51
Loyalty 52, 53, 151
Mallary 73
Marshall 68, 69, 71, 148, 153
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents 45
Missouri ex rel Gaines v.
Canada 45
Index 159



model 7, 9, 83, 93, 95, 96, 98,
99
mongrelization 23
Morgan 104, 153
Muller 4, 153
National Election Study 74,
147
National Latino Immigrant
Survey 3
NBC News, Wall Street
Journal survey 14
NES 74, 76, 77, 78
Nixon v. Condon 44
NLIS viii, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14,
73, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 99,
100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 107, 109, 110, 111,
129, 130, 131, 132, 134,
141, 144
Novak 56, 57, 153
Pachon and DeSipio vii, 3
Participant Demographics 109
Participation in the political
process 84
participation in the
political/electoral process
viii, 68, 79, 81, 82, 130,
143
participation in voluntary
associations 68, 70
Participation in Voluntary
Associations 69
participation in voluntary
organizations viii, 79, 82,
83
Petersen 28, 63, 153
Ping v. U.S 31
Pinkerton 18, 153
Plessy 31, 42, 45, 46, 50, 130,
140
political participation 9, 29, 56,
69, 84, 87, 121, 126, 133,
142
Portes and Rumbaut 13
Putnam 70, 100, 132, 142, 154
Roberts 23, 140, 142, 154
Schlesinger 27, 34, 35, 36, 39,
154
Sedgewick 66
Shelley v. Kraemer 44, 51
Shklar 70, 154
Simpson 28
Sipuel v. Oklahoma 45
Smith 16, 17, 29, 31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 38, 50, 59, 99, 154,
155
Smith v. Allwright 44
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
72
Speaking English 75, 77, 78
Strauder 42, 44, 50, 140
Strauder v. West Virginia 42,
50
Summary of Legal Cases 49
Supreme Court vii, 8, 15, 29,
30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 43,
44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 72,
79, 98, 130, 134, 140
Sweatt v. Painter 45
Taney 29
Tape Recording the Focus
Groups 108
The Civil Rights Cases 30, 42,
50
The Ku Klux Cases 72
Thompson 56, 155
Tilly and Gurin 69
160 Index


Tocqueville 64, 69, 70, 132,
155
U.S. Congress 20, 28, 30, 66,
155, 156
Ungar 57, 155
vote 33, 34, 47, 72, 74, 84, 85,
88, 118, 122, 127, 140
Walzer 35, 40, 63, 156
Warren 46, 48, 51
Waters 22, 59, 156
What Is An American 130
Wildavsky 56, 155
Wilkinson 13, 28, 52, 130,
138, 156
Wilson 25, 52, 65, 148
Wrinkle 73, 156
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 43, 50,
141