From the Archives: Actress Tracey Ullman reflects on citizenship and equality at Monticello

Actress Tracey Ullman reflects on citizenship and equality at Monticello
July 4, 2010 4:28 PM MST

Tracey Ullman at Monticello, July 4, 2010

At the 48th annual Independence Day naturalization ceremony at Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello on July 4, the featured speaker was actress and comedienne Tracey Ullman, who has won seven Emmy Awards® for her work in television. Her self-named Fox-TV show of the 1980s introduced the world interstitially to The Simpsons.

Ullman is a dual British-American citizen. Born and raised in Slough, England, she has lived and worked in the United States for 25 years and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2006.

In her remarks to the 71 immigrants from more than two dozen countries (from Afghanistan and Armenia to Uzbekistan and Vietnam), Ullman emphasized how her early impressions of America were those of “confidence,” that the American attitude was one of “if you want it, come and get it.”

After the ceremony, Ullman sat down for a one-on-one interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, answering questions about citizenship, the American dream, and what she finds valuable in the American founding.

Subjects and Citizens
Noting that it was recently revealed that, in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote the word “subjects” and smudged it out so he could replace it with “citizens,” Ullman talked about the difference between “subject” and “citizen,” because she has been both.

She said she was pleased to learn about Jefferson’s editing, that “he changed it, that he moved on, that he made the change.”

“Yes,” she said, “I have been a subject and now a citizen and it’s interesting. I just think that we are equal. There’s no one better than us. We’re not paying people millions of pounds to be better than us,” as the British pay their royal family.

“I’ve never been a royalist,” Ullman explained, “and that [equality] is something that really appealed to me about America.”

Image of Confidence

When she was growing up as a girl in England, Ullman absorbed many images of America that she saw on television. What most impressed her, she said, “was the Olympics,” not only because American athletes won so many gold medals, but “it was the confidence,” they exhibited.

In addition, she said, “it was that ‘you can be anyone you want to be’” attitude and “kindness,” as well as “inspirational people like Lily Tomlin. I impersonated her at my school when I was like 10. I said, ‘I want to be Lily Tomlin. I want to be Gilda Radner.’”

Ullman joked that “our images of America were like Dallas, when I was a kid, like soap operas and things” but even so, when she first arrived in the United States at the age of 20, she was “very inspired.”

Citizenship Test
Since Ullman so recently went through the naturalization process, she spoke about the most surprising things she learned as she prepared for the citizenship test.

One was, she laughed, a question about two forms used by the immigration authorities, the N-200 and the N-400. That’s “a real question,” she said, and applicants had to know the difference between those forms. “I think they’ve dropped that one now, it’s a little obscure.”

She was most impressed, however, by the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, which is why, she said, it is so inspiring “to be here, where Thomas Jefferson” lived. He was “so forward thinking,” for his time, Ullman remarked, and that is why she remembers “really being impressed with the words of the Founding Fathers, in particular Thomas Jefferson, who was just so enlightened and so brave and so incredible at that time and still holds up” today.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 4, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 22, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

America is, “on average, poorer” because immigration laws limit the number of willing workers who can come to the United States and offer their services to willing employers.

That was one of the points made by economist Daniel Lin during an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner after he delivered a lecture at the University of Virginia on the topic, "Who Wins? Who Loses? The Economic Effects of Immigration."

Educated at UCLA and George Mason University, Lin teaches economics at American University, where his research interests include the industrial organization of entertainment industries, the theory of the firm, and the antitrust implications of various theories of competition. His lecture at UVA was sponsored by Young Americans for Liberty and the Institute for Humane Studies.

“Most of the discussion about whether we should allow more immigrants” into the United States, Lin said in the interview, focuses on the question, “Is the increase in well-being that we see for the immigrants, is that enough to justify the fact that Americans suffer?”

'Foreigners benefit us'
Even if you don't “say that foreigners are worth just as much as Americans,” he continued, “you can say that we should focus on Americans first.”

Still, Lin added, “what this discussion is missing is: Do we really know what's happening to Americans? And are we really paying attention to how much foreigners benefit us when they come here?”

The purpose of his lecture, he said, was to point out how “we're not really sure about either of those things. It turns out the effects on Americans, when we allow more foreigners, are not conclusively negative.”

Some “respectable economists,” he explained, argue that “when we allow more foreigners in, it allows more Americans to specialize in higher-wage jobs, to do more,” and the wages of Americans “go up.”

Complementing Americans
Part of the reason for this is complementarity, meaning that immigrants do jobs that free up Americans to do other jobs, often jobs that pay higher wages and are more productive.

“When we see workers coming in,” Lin explained, “we often think that they directly compete with all Americans, but that's not quite correct. When new workers come into this country, they are also complements to American workers.”

He offered the example of someone who is a programmer or a scientist.

“If you have that person mow his own lawn, or cook his own food, or make his own clothes, he's going to have to take time away from being a scientist [or] being a programmer,” he said.

If, instead, someone else performs those tasks, the American “can focus more time on being a scientist, being a programmer, and do more work, be more productive,” Lin explained. “The helper is not a direct competitor to the scientist or the programmer or the teacher or researcher, whatever.”

The immigrant is instead “a complement, who makes that person [the American] better off. That is why you don't see people who are hiring nannies or gardeners recoiling when they do that. They're not forced to do those things. They want to do those things. It's the laws that are trying to prevent those things from happening.”

The people “who are doing the hiring and the people who are doing the working,” Lin pointed out “both benefit when they are allowed to contract with each other.”

Making Americans poorer
Having laws that impede immigration into the United States makes everybody poorer, he explained.

“The current laws allow foreigners to come in but it is a trickle compared to the number of people who want to come in and the number of people who Americans want to hire,” Lin said.

“If you look at the waiting list for visas” for people who want to work in the United States, which are often multiple-years long, Lin said, “we certainly can conclude that America is, on average, poorer because we block these types of contracts from happening – these exchanges from happening.”

When people who want to work in the United States “are being prevented from coming here and the Americans who would benefit from having these extra workers are not allowed to have those benefits,” he argued, “we certainly do see Americans on the whole being poorer than otherwise they would be.”

The stereotype that immigrants are hard-working and ambitious is “rooted in truth,” Lin said, because of “selection bias” that comes from people who are “willing to overcome the cultural differences, the language differences, moving apart from [their] home town [and] family,” in order to come here to work, as well as who are “willing to put up with a lot of bureaucracy” to get that “golden ticket” permitting them to work in the United States.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products
What is the DREAM Act, and why is it important? A conversation with Claire Gastañaga
Omidyar Network's Karol Boudreaux offers optimistic view of African economies
Economist Peter Boettke deflates candidates’ concept of ‘energy independence’
James Robinson discusses 'why nations fail' at George Mason University

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/immigration-laws-may-make-united-states-poorer-says-economist-daniel-lin

From the Archives: 'West Side Racist?'

In a recent commentary on controversies surrounding sports team names, Winston Jones wrote in the Douglas County (Ga.) Sentinel:

Our society has gotten too picky and thin-skinned so that too many people are offended by too many things. And too many people are running circles around themselves to try to be politically correct on everything. Don't take life so seriously.

That's the point I tried to make in an opinion piece I wrote 14 years ago in reaction to complaints about a New England high school's production of West Side Story. The article appeared on November 21, 1999, in the Daily News of Bowling Green, Kentucky, under the headline, "West Side racist? - Objections to classic play is a sad commentary on our times." The only other place it is available on the Web is here.

This text, however, is more accessible.

- - -

Word comes from Amherst, Massachusetts, that some students and parents object to a planned production of the classic 1957 musical play, West Side Story, at the local high school. They are insisting that it be canceled.

The local newspaper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette noted in its Nov. 11 edition that a petition presented to the school board with over 150 signatures states: "The play continues to generate negative stereotypes of Puerto Ricans in society and perpetuates the racism that we as students have been working so hard to eliminate in our school and community." Other complaints cited the play's use of violence as a way to solve problems.

This is yet another case of ill-informed cultural critics failing to see the forest for the trees. Anyone who has seen West Side Story - or performed in it - cannot help but be touched by its message against prejudice and violence. The message is not subtle. It is not hidden. It is not difficult to grasp.

Like a previous protests against such literary works as Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, the complainers seem not to understand that in order to present a theme that condemns racial prejudice and stereotyping, it is necessary also to present unsavory characters and dialogue that express the ideas and conditions to author wishes to condemn. Because these types of protests are successful, students are denied an opportunity for fruitful exploration of some of the complex and sad problems faced by our society.


West Side Story is itself based upon an earlier classic, William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. In its original concept, it was called East Side Story and its focus was to be on a conflicted Catholic-Jewish relationship. As creators Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Robbins and Arthur Laurents (and later Stephen Sondheim) moved forward on the project, they became aware of the tensions in Los Angeles between Americans and Mexican immigrants and in New York's West Side between native English speakers and recent migrants from Puerto Rico. They decided to reset their play in this environment.

But does it "perpetuate stereotypes"? Does it inflame racial or ethnic tensions? Hardly. As Ethan Mordden notes in the chapter on West Side Story in his history of the Broadway musical in the 1950's, Coming Up Roses, "West Side Story is about real people: real life, real love and something is possible, for all the despair."

In Amherst, one alumna said the possibility of her high school presenting West Side Story is "humiliating." A parent, Elizabeth Capifali (a doctoral candidate in the multicultural education at the University of Massachusetts), called it "a very racist play" that is "replete with racial discrimination, creating negative images of Puerto Ricans and poor European immigrants."

Which European immigrants? The characters in the play are all "Americans" - but the ones who speak English and originally lived in New York come off looking much worse, morally speaking, than the Americans who speak Spanish and come from Puerto Rico. It is the "Anglos" who are unwelcoming, disrespectful and hostile toward their new neighbors. It is the "natives" who would rather fight the Puerto Ricans than work and play alongside them. The "natives" are blustery Archie-Bunkers-in-training, with a violent, gangster-like bent. The Puerto Rican characters - also Americans, as they don't hesitate to remind us, and their adversaries - simply want to make a better life for themselves. What kind of negative stereotype is that?

Bowling Green Daily News, November 21, 1999

Aside from the play's message, which can only be missed by someone wearing blinders and earplugs, it is a landmark of the American stage that deserves to be seen and performed by young people who wish to be culturally literate.

West Side Story was cutting-edge in 1957, yet seems somewhat old-fashioned today. (This was my reaction to a London revival earlier this year [1999] that recreated the original production, including the sets and costumes.) Still, students of the theatre recognize its innovations: in music and lyrics, in its focus on young people to the exclusion of adults, in its daring realism in a medium that relies on fantasy. Its progeny include Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret, Sweeney Todd, and Ragtime. To deny members of the Amherst Regional High School community an opportunity to participate in, observe and learn from West Side Story is petty and barbarous.

We can only hope that the level-headed faculty, students, and school board members stand up to these philistines. The show must go on.

- - -

For more discussion about West Side Story, check out these videos of a post-screening discussion about the movie from the 2008 Virginia Film Festival.

Part I:


Part II:

Interview with Corey Stewart

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, hosted a reception on the first night of the Republican Party of Virginia's state convention last weekend, and I took him aside for about five minutes to interview him for The Metro Herald. I missed the deadline for this week's issue, but look for it in print next Friday.

Here is the text of the article:

Interview with Prince William County Board Chairman Corey Stewart
Rick Sincere
Special to The Metro Herald

The Metro Herald’s Rick Sincere was at the state Republican convention in Richmond on May 29-30. He had a brief interview with Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, at a convention-eve reception at the Penny Lane Pub near the Richmond Coliseum. Here is a transcript of that interview, which covered the upcoming elections, transportation and education issues, crime rates, illegal immigration, and more.


Metro Herald: What do you think is the atmosphere at the convention?

Corey Stewart: I think people are excited. But I think more than that, there is definitely a feeling that the party is coming back, that Republicans are now in the ascendance. Some of that anti-Bush feeling is gone. There is some buyers’ remorse out there in the community. I can feel it in Prince William County, with Obama, with the egregious amount of spending going on. I feel confident that we’re on our way back, I really do.

Metro Herald: What do you think the top issues you’re going to have to deal with in the fall are going to be?

Corey Stewart: It’s all the economy – everything. As Republicans what we need to do is emphasize economic growth, restraint in government spending, and pushing forward economic development. But more than that, I think the most important thing that government can do is just keep out of the way of business: deregulation and lowering of taxes on individuals and on businesses, and letting people keep more of their own money, and letting businesses keep more of their own money. That leads to economic growth. That’s the Republican message. That’s always been our message. That’s going to start gaining some real traction here, as we move into an even deeper recession coming forward.

Metro Herald: What are some specific initiatives you’re taking in Prince William County to achieve those goals?

Corey Stewart: We’ve cut taxes significantly. The average homeowner in Prince William County will receive [an] approximately 16 percent reduction in their average tax bill. It hasn’t hit them yet, because we just passed that budget. We had to cut $194 million in spending in order to do that. It means the average tax bill goes down significantly. People are going to appreciate that. Businesses, as well, are going to appreciate the lower tax levels in Prince William County.

Metro Herald: Do you have any specific deregulatory initiatives you’re working on, in terms of local businesses to try to attract more business into the county?

Corey Stewart: That’s a great question. In fact, we do. One of the things is, we have a very cumbersome permitting and inspection process in the county. A couple of us have spearheaded an initiative to reduce the time it takes for a business to expand or receive a permit to open up. We’ve reduced that significantly and the results are starting to come back. Prince William is growing. It’s growing very quickly. We’re also going to take additional steps to make the remaining part of that process, the zoning process, much [more quickly], so that businesses can make it through that process quicker and open their doors faster, as well.

Metro Herald: Big question for our readers in Northern Virginia: What do you think needs to be done for transportation?

Corey Stewart: I think clearly what has to be done in transportation is a matter of priority. We already pay enough in tax. What we have to do as a state government is do what we’ve done locally in Prince William, and that is, you have to cut. When you cut some of the excesses and the fat and, frankly, some of those lower-priority programs that have been built up over the past couple of decades, that leaves room in the budget for transportation. It’s a core government responsibility; it has to be done. You don’t have to do it by raising taxes. What you have to do is to cut other areas and make room for transportation.

Metro Herald: Similar question: What are you doing in terms of education?

Corey Stewart: In education, what we’ve done in Prince William County, is we’ve reduced all levels of government, every department, including our educational system. Unfortunately, the federal government came in at the same time and pumped $60 million of federal money, stimulus-fund money, into Prince William County’s educational system. What that led to was that some of those cutbacks in programs that weren’t working and so forth, were simply restored, because they used the federal money to restore those programs that otherwise would have been cut. In the long term, that’s not a good thing.

Metro Herald: Any special message you’d like to send to the readers of The Metro Herald?

Corey Stewart: I think, if you’re looking for conservative government in the D.C. metropolitan region, there’s only one community, only one locality that continues to be Republican-led. That’s Prince William County. We’ve cut taxes, we’ve cracked down on illegal immigration, our crime rate has now dropped 37 percent in two years (our violent crime rate). We’re doing some real conservative solutions that are working.

Metro Herald: What’s the secret to dropping the crime rate?

Corey Stewart: The crackdown on illegal immigration, frankly. When we started sending out the signal that, if you’re an illegal immigrant and you’re in our community and you commit a crime, you’re going to be deported, they began leaving. Immediately we started seeing the results and, as a result, all citizens benefit because the violent crime rate has come down so significantly in just two years.

Metro Herald: Are you playing any particular role in this convention, or are you just a regular delegate?

Corey Stewart: I’m here to support my candidates. It’s also great to be here this year. We’ve been so down for the last couple of years as Republicans but things are really, truly on the way back up.

Metro Herald: Do you have any local candidates you’d like to name right now, to say who you’ll be supporting in the fall?

Corey Stewart: I’ll be supporting Ken Cuccinelli [for Attorney General] and of course Bob [McDonnell for Governor] and Bill Bolling [for Lieutenant Governor], of course. Those are my three. I’m confident that we’re going to do very, very well this fall and that’s going to lead and set the whole stage for 2010 nationally.

Metro Herald: Do you have any candidates for the House of Delegates you think are going to be breaking through this fall, any challengers?

Corey Stewart: Well, we do. We’ve got a really good challenger in the 51st district in Rich Anderson, and Rafael Lopez in the 52nd. They’re going to do very well, I think.

Metro Herald: Thank you for your time.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Remembrances of Independence Days Past - Part I

Today (July 4, 2008) will see President George W. Bush speaking at Monticello's Independence Day celebration. He is the fourth sitting president to do so, following Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, Harry S Truman in 1947, and Gerald R. Ford in the Bicentennial Year of 1976.

Eight years ago, the principal speaker at the ceremony was, like Monticello's builder and first owner, a U.S. Secretary of State. At the swearing in of some six dozen new American citizens, Dr. Madeleine Albright spoke about her own experience as an immigrant to the United States and of the contributions foreign-born Americans have made to our culture and our communities.

I covered the event that year for the Metro Herald in Alexandria. It was my first time visiting Monticello on the Fourth of July and certainly not my last. (Last year I used the new citizen-journalist tool, YouTube, to post video of the event.)

This article appeared in the Metro Herald on July 7, 2000:

ON THE MOUNTAINTOP: A CELEBRATION OF CITIZENSHIP AND FREEDOM
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Charlottesville Bureau Chief

Atop the “little mountain” he called by its Italian name, Monticello, Thomas Jefferson reflected on life and liberty, wrote thousands of letters, and received many visitors from Virginia and elsewhere.

As the epitaph on his gravestone, Mr. Jefferson chose to be remembered for only three things: that he was the father of the University of Virginia, the author of Virginia’s statute on religious liberty, and the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Jefferson died on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, just after noon in the bedroom that was the center of his life in the home he built at Monticello.

Every year since 1963, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation – which owns and runs Monticello as a monument to the third president – has sponsored a ceremony on the anniversary of American independence and Mr. Jefferson’s death at which immigrants to the United States take the oath of citizenship, forsaking their foreign allegiances to become true Americans.

On July 4, 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was the keynote speaker at a ceremony on the West Lawn of Monticello. Nearly 80 adults from 27 foreign countries took the oath of citizenship, and nine children adopted into American families were given certificates of citizenship.

Secretary Albright, herself an immigrant (from Czechoslovakia) and a naturalized American citizen, welcomed her new compatriots in a brief but impassioned speech.

Speaking of her own arrival in New York Harbor at the age of 11, a refugee from Communist tyranny after previously fleeing Nazi occupation, Albright remembered her doubts and worries. But, she said, “I should not have been worried. At its best, America’s embrace is as vast as this continent is broad. We [her family] were welcomed, given refuge, and provided the chance to make new friends and build new lives in freedom.”

Addressing the concerns of those who fear the aliens among us, Albright reminded us that America is richer for its immigrants. Today, she said, “we see the contributions of immigrants everywhere in the vitality of our neighborhoods, the health of our economy, the strength of our democracy, and the enduring miracle of our unity.”

Gently scolding those xenophobes who would have prevented her and such eminences as Albert Einstein, Mother Frances Cabrini, and Andrew Grove from coming to America and helping to make it great, Albright noted: “There are some who resent all this and think that the day after they entered is the day the door to America should have swung shut. Let us pray that day never comes. For our nation needs the continued refreshment of new sources of energy and strength.”

It would have been impolite to fail to make note of the day’s host, Mr. Jefferson. So Secretary Albright paid tribute to him by saying that “the mind that conceived Monticello’s original design also helped to conceive an approach to government that had never truly been tried before. It was based on a conception of the individual not as a mere subject to the throne, but as a citizen with responsibilities and rights, and tracing all the powers of government back to the will and consent of the people.”

Those principles, Albright added, “fueled a revolution and launched America on its journey from wilderness to greatness – with important milestones of slavery’s abolition and the full enfranchisement of women and minorities along the way.”

Not content to make a speech and then return to her duties in Washington, Secretary Albright stood alongside the new Americans as they were sworn in by Samuel G. Wilson, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. She took the oath of citizenship with them and then greeted each one of them individually, shaking their hands and presenting them with the certificates proving their new nationality.

Also speaking at the ceremony were former Virginia Supreme Court Justice John Charles Thomas, who read the stirring opening section of Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”), and James H. Michael, Jr., the senior U.S. District Judge, who tried to explain, in a few words, how the day’s ceremony was not the end of a journey for the new citizens, but a beginning. Opening remarks were provided by Daniel P. Jordan, president of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, and the Foundation’s chairman, Benton S. Halsey. The ceremony closed with the Pledge of Allegiance led by local Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and the assembly sang the National Anthem, accompanied by the Charlottesville Municipal Band.

All photos by Rick Sincere.

(Special thanks to the Metro Herald's Greg Roscoe for digging up this piece from the newspaper's dusty archives.)

Immigration and Identity

Given the vexatious debate about immigration policy that shows no signs of abating in this country, I was fascinated to find an article in the LSE Magazine (a quarterly for alumni) that looks at how immigrants to the United Kingdom view themselves in terms of national identity. The article is based on a longer, scholarly discussion paper.

Both authors are, as one might expect, associated with the London School of Economics and Political Science. Alan Manning is a professor of economics there and he is director of the Labour Markets Programme at the School’s Centre for Economic Performance. Sanchari Roy is a doctoral student in economics and a member of the LSE's Economics of Organisation and Public Policy research group.

In their article, "Culture clash or culture club?" -- also the title of the discussion paper -- Manning and Roy unpack some of their findings about how members different ethnic and religious groups think of themselves after they have immigrated to Britain. Their research was sparked by some of the statements attributed to the July 7 terrorists:

There is widespread belief that a growing fraction of Muslims who live (and in many cases were born) in Britain do not think of themselves as British, have no aspiration to do so and do not want their children to either; that they are subscribing instead to some other identity and creating little enclaves that resemble, as far as is possible, the countries from which they came or a model of the good society very different from what is generally thought of as ‘Britain’.

Such fears tend to be magnified by the statements by some British Muslims, which appear to explicitly reject a British identity and affirm another one. One of the 7 July bombers appeared in a video released after the London bombings and said: ‘Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters’, with the use of the words ‘my’ and ‘your’ clearly expressing the people with whom he did or did not identify. We wanted to find out how widespread this kind of identification is in the UK.

The researchers were just as surprised by their findings, which were based on a survey of more than one million participants, as their readers might be:

Among those who are born in Britain, over 90 per cent of all groups of whatever religion or ethnicity think of themselves as British. In particular there is no evidence that Muslims are less likely to think of themselves as British than other groups....

Of those describing themselves as Christian 99.1 per cent report themselves as British. But of those describing themselves as Muslim the proportion is a slightly higher 99.2 per cent to report, exceeded only by those who identify as Jewish. Percentages reporting a British identity are lower for Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus, but are above 95 per cent for all groups. It is hard to look at these figures and see grounds for concern. Of course, this does not mean that Muslims see themselves as British and not Muslim: it is just that they see no conflict in being both.

One striking discovery from the survey is this:

There is, however, one group that stands out as reporting an extremely low level of British identity – Catholics from Northern Ireland. From our research, it appears that any identity conflict among British born Muslims is an order of magnitude smaller than that among Catholics from Northern Ireland.

How about that? People born in the UK feel less "British" than people born elsewhere! But other findings are equally interesting:

This process of assimilation is faster for some immigrant groups than others, but not in the way that might be expected. For example, Muslims are not less likely to feel British than those from other backgrounds, and immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh assimilate into a British identity much faster than average, while those from Western Europe and the United States do so more slowly, with Italians standing out as the group which assimilates least into a British identity. We find evidence that immigrants from poorer and less democratic countries assimilate faster into a British identity. Part but not all of this can be explained by a greater tendency among the latter group to take up citizenship.

Manning and Roy find that the process of assimilation applies as much to the holding of political and cultural values as well as an amorphous sense of "identity":

... immigrants are very slightly less likely to have views on rights and responsibilities that are generally held by popular concensus to be ‘desirable’, but the differences are much smaller than the differences among the UK born population of different ages and with different levels of education. It is also true that the immigrant groups who emerge as having different values from the UK born population are not the ones which have become the focus of the most public concern, for example, Muslims do not have significantly different values.

These findings strongly suggest that the UK is not riven by large scale culture clash, contrary to what many people seem to believe. This is not to deny the existence of some people who are prepared to use violence to further their agenda but our evidence suggests that these are a tiny minority. For example, the 2003 British Social Attitudes Survey asked the respondents to say whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘Muslims are more loyal to Muslims than to Britain’. Of the non-Muslim respondents only 9 per cent disagreed, with a further 25 per cent neither agreeing nor disagreeing. But, among the Muslim respondents (who we might expect to be better-informed on the subject) 45 per cent disagreed, a significant difference even though the survey only contained 20 Muslim respondents. And 62 per cent of non-Muslim respondents thought there was a fairly or very serious conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain, compared to 27 per cent of Muslims. Another question about conflicts in the world as a whole between Muslims and non-Muslims had 85 per cent of non-Muslims saying they thought there was a fairly or very serious conflict, but only 67 per cent of Muslims saying so.

Considering that the process of assimilation in the United States tends to be swifter and more complete than that in Britain or in Europe -- or so we have assumed for a long, long time, since American society is less socially stratified and more mobile than European and British societies are -- the research of Manning and Roy could have applications here at home. It is certainly something worth pondering during the legislative and cultural debates taking place about immigrants and immigration policy in the United States.

I recommend visiting the original articles in order to examine the illuminating charts and graphs that the authors have included with their text.

Mr. President

Congratulations and best wishes to President Gerald R. Ford, who today becomes the longest-lived former American president, surpassing the lifespans of Ronald Reagan, John Adams, and Herbert Hoover. He is now 93 years, three months, and 29 days old.

In an editorial-page tribute, the Columbian newspaper of Clark County, Washington, states that the American people have fond memories of Ford, who took office during the dark days of Watergate, adding

when it comes to presidents who had just the right temperament, personality and empathy for the collective mindset of Americans at a crucial moment in history, Gerald Ford was one of the very best.

Ford's current hometown newspaper, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, offers these memories:

In Washington, he's remembered as the great healer, the president confronted with the Herculean task of rebuilding trust in the White House on the heels of Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation.

In Michigan, they recall the former Big 10 star who spurned a professional football career after graduation from the University of Michigan for a life in public service.

And in the Coachella Valley, he and his wife, Betty, are our neighbors in the desert, a former president and first lady who have contributed richly to the area's civic and social scenes.

As I have written before, Ford -- though much maligned and remembered perhaps too much for physical stumbles and not enough for principle and conviction -- represents an authentic conservative tradition of limited government, a "leave us alone" philosophy in tune with Barry Goldwater's and Ronald Reagan's and in contrast to the Republicans who just got "thumped" in the mid-term elections.

One of Ford's favorite maxims was this: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

Despite an undeserved reputation as an amiable if dull thinker, Ford actually had a consistent and well-considered political philosophy, as well as a deep understanding of the meaning of the American experiment. This latter vision was perhaps best expressed in his remarks at Monticello on July 4, 1976, on the dual occasion of the Bicentennial of the United States of America and the annual naturalization ceremony for new citizens held on the lawn of Mr. Jefferson's house.

Addressing the dignitaries present -- Virginia Governor Mills Godwin, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Justice Lewis Powell, and others -- but aiming his words more directly at the new Americans, Ford said:

After two centuries there is still something wonderful about being an American. If we cannot quite express it, we know what it is. You know what it is, or you would not be here today. Why not just call it patriotism?

Thomas Jefferson was a Virginia planter, a politician, a philosopher, a practical problemsolver, a Palladian architect, a poet in prose. With such genius he became a burgess, a delegate, a Governor, an ambassador, a Secretary of State, a Vice President, and President of the United States. But he was first a patriot.

The American patriots of 1776 who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare and defend our independence did more than dissolve their ties with another country to protest against abuses of their liberties. Jefferson and his colleagues very deliberately and very daringly set out to construct a new kind of nation. "Men may be trusted," he said, "to govern themselves without a master." This was the most revolutionary idea in the world at that time. It remains the most revolutionary idea in the world today.

Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and all patriots who laid the foundation for freedom in our Declaration and our Constitution carefully studied both contemporary and classic models of government to adapt them to the American climate and our circumstances. Just as Jefferson did in designing Monticello, they wanted to build in this beautiful land a home for equal freedom and opportunity, a haven of safety and happiness, not for themselves alone, but for all who would come to us through centuries.

I have attended several of the naturalization ceremonies at Monticello, and unfortunately on too many occasions, the celebrity speakers seem to offer little more than platitudes. There's nothing wrong with that -- the ceremonies tend to take place under the hot sun in the heavy humidity of Charlottesville's summers, and so keeping it light may be the polite thing to do -- but one wants to have a bit more to sink one's teeth into. Ford gave his audience something to think about.

Perhaps unconsciously, Ford used quite libertarian language to describe the benefits of living in a society made up of immigrants and the sons and daughters of immigrants. In terms that, say, Tyler Cowen might use, Ford continued his address:

To be an American is to subscribe to those principles which the Declaration of Independence proclaims and the Constitution protects -- the political values of self-government, liberty and justice, equal rights, and equal opportunity. These beliefs are the secrets of America's unity from diversity -- in my judgment the most magnificent achievement of our 200 years as a nation.

"Black is beautiful" was a motto of genius which uplifted us far above its intention. Once Americans had thought about it and perceived its truth, we began to realize that so are brown, white, red, and yellow beautiful. When I was young, a Sunday school teacher told us that the beauty of Joseph's coat was its many colors. I believe Americans are beautiful -- individually, in communities, and freely joined together by dedication to the United States of America.

I see a growing danger in this country to conformity of thought and taste and behavior. We need more encouragement and protection for individuality. The wealth we have of culture, ethnic and religious and racial traditions are valuable counterbalances to the overpowering sameness and subordination of totalitarian societies. The sense of belonging to any group that stands for something decent and noble, so long as it does not confine free spirits or cultivate hostility to others, is part of the pride every American should have in the heritage of the past. That heritage is rooted now, not in England alone -- as indebted as we are for the Magna Carta and the common law -- not in Europe alone, or in Africa alone, or Asia, or on the islands of the sea. The American adventure draws from the best of all of mankind's long sojourn here on Earth and now reaches out into the solar system. [Emphasis added]

Ford concluded his remarks on that historic occasion with a reminder about our responsibility to the past and the future:

Remember that none of us are more than caretakers of this great country. Remember that the more freedom you give to others, the more you will have for yourself. Remember that without law there can be no liberty. And remember, as well, the rich treasures you brought from whence you came, and let us share your pride in them. This is the way that we keep our independence as exciting as the day it was declared and keep the United States of America even more beautiful than Joseph's coat.

Historians are rightfully reconsidering the presidency of Gerald R. Ford and finding it better than it may have fared in the assessments of 30 years ago. If this be revisionism, let's have more of it.

Aliens Among Us

It is a rare occasion when I find myself in accord with Red Ken, the flaming socialist mayor of London.

Yet when I opened up this morning's Washington Times, I read an article in which Ken Livingstone's views are presented as fully in line with mine.

In a Bloomberg News article (which does not, strangely, appear on the Washington Times web site) about the influx of Polish immigrants to Britain since 2004, Livingstone is paraphrased as saying he thinks immigrants are good for London's economy:

Attracted by jobs and higher pay, immigrants are transforming neighborhoods as shops stock Polish goods, jobseekers post notices in their native language and attendance at Catholic churches booms. The new residents are weakening "community cohesion," lobbying group Migration Watch says.

"Londoners are being displaced by the arrival of immigrants, which is changing the makeup of the city," said Andrew Green, the organization's chairman "It simply isn't sustainable."

Mayor Ken Livingstone disagrees, saying immigrants help the economy grow. The city is investing in transportation, housing and police services to keep pace with the inflow, he said.

It is hard to see how Polish immigrants might be taking jobs from British natives: The unemployment rate in the UK is now about 3 percent, compared to 11 percent or more in Central Europe.

The article goes on to note the long history of Polish settlers in London, including novelist Joseph Conrad and refugees from Nazi- and Communist-occupied Poland in the middle of the 20th century. I remember having lunch at a Polish restaurant in Chelsea as long ago as 1987, when one of the habitués asked me if I was Polish. (I had to pause to think about my answer, finally settling on, "No, I'm American. But my ancestors were Polish." He seemed satisfied by that.)

Around that same time, I saw a terrific play at the National Theatre called Coming in to Land, written by Stephen Poliakoff and starring the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith as a Polish refugee -- or not -- trying to gain asylum in Britain. Smith's character's name was Halina Sonya Rodziewizowna. (The play, directed by Sir Peter Hall, also included Anthony Andrews and Tim Pigott-Smith in the cast.)

Althought the political situation was far different then than now -- this was the height of the Cold War, remember -- some of the themes echo from the play today. Here's a speech from Act I; you'll notice the parallels as the speaker catalogues the reasons Halina may not be able to stay in Britain:

Firstly, Halina has waited, which is usually fatal. There is a detestation of casual applications -- unless you arrive screaming at the airport, I can't stand it back home and I'm not safe there, demanding immediate asylum, they are intensely suspicious, they are paranoid about all sorts of odds and sods being dumped on them from Eastern Europe...

Secondly, every attempt to land is made in context -- the context of world events, and that isn't too good at the moment is it. The recent sudden squall of East West tension, the expulsion of five Polish students in the US for industrial and military espionage, and three Russians from here...

Moreover Halina does not wishto get involved in ritual 'hate' propaganda about her homeland, understandably.

(Sharply.) Lastly -- Halina is not unfortunately a famous dissident, or even a member of Solidarity, no fashionable reason here, nor obviously is she something nationally desirable, like a ballerina, olympic athlete, boxer, squash player, or even a film director!

What the critics of Polish (and other East European) immigration to London fail to recognize is that London is the premier cosmopolitan city. It was, in fact, the first truly cosmopolitan metropole to emerge since the fall of Rome, and it did so during the Renaissance. London attracted more and different peoples earlier, and in greater numbers, than any other town or city in Western Europe.

That London was a crossroads is a significant -- if not the most important -- factor in Britain's true claim to be the leader in the Industrial Revolution. London attracted thinkers from both the French and Scottish Enlightenments. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, the dining clubs in London of the 18th century had the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge gathered in one place -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

London was the destination for many different types of Britons -- Welsh, Scots, Irish, Geordies -- for centuries. French Huguenots and Jews expelled from continental Europe settled there because it was a safe haven. And it had a Chinatown long before New York or San Francisco did. Recent decades have seen many other lands represented among London's population. As the Bloomberg story explains:

Poles are just the latest wave of newcomers to try their luck in London. Migrants from India, Pakistan and Africa boosted the population in the 1990s. Twenty-eight percent of Londoners were born outside the U.K., according to the 2001 census.

The article includes this astonishing tidbit:

London businesses are adapting to their new customers. Nil Kanth Patel said he learned Polish to serve customers better at his newsstand in Hammersmith.

"The neighborhood has gone through lots of change, especially since 2004," said Patel, who is from Uganda and has run the shop for 17 years. "It's been great for my business, as half of my customers are now Polish."

What could be more emblematic of London's cosmopolitanism -- and indeed of the global economy itself -- than an African immigrant with an Indian surname learning Polish in order to build a better business?

A few weeks ago, I read University of Chicago historian William H. McNeill's memoir, The Pursuit of Truth. The book -- which is worth a review all of its own -- describes McNeill's intellectual struggle to create a coherent "world history" and to make that sub-discipline respectable within the community of professional historians.

One insight that McNeill had is so simple that its profundity might be missed: namely, that progress depends on the interactions of strangers, or, as McNeill puts it,

the continual innovative effect of contacts and and exchanges between civilizations and peoples round about, with special attention to technological transfers....

London has for centuries been a nexus of exchange among strangers. It is, and has been, for that reason, a great city -- if not the greatest. In the 21st century, the contributions of Polish immigrants and others from the new member states of the EU will make London even greater.

Morning at Monticello

As noted earlier, I had plans to attend the annual naturalization ceremony at Monticello this morning, which I did.

The ceremony, part of the Independence Day Exercises at the home of the author of the Declaration of Independence, featured artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude as speakers. (The tradition, though not always followed, is for immigrants to address the soon-to-be citizens. In this case, Christo came from Bulgaria and Jeanne-Claude from France before becoming naturalized Americans.)

As it happens, Jeanne-Claude did most of the talking, although both she and Christo stood at the podium. She began by saying she wanted to keep her remarks short, given the heat of the day. (It was, to be sure, hot and muggy under the sun on the mountaintop.) She noted the oddity that her husband and she shared the same birthday, though they were born in different countries and, she assured us, different mothers.

Jeanne-Claude also revealed that after Christo and she arrived in New York in 1964, they lived for three years as "illegal aliens." "Yes, they do exist," she said.

In pointing out many of the wonderful aspects of life in the United States, Jeanne-Claude said that sometimes you hear people say, "the government will pay for it." But, she retorted, "the government doesn't have money. It's our money. It all comes from the taxpayers." She cautioned her listeners to pay attention to where their money goes when the government spends it.

After the featured address, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for Naturalization Ceremonies was called into session, with Judge James P. Jones presiding. The names of the candidates for citizenship were called out, they strolled up to the stage, and, once assembled, Judge Jones asked them to repeat the oath of citizenship:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

In his own, brief remarks, Judge Jones evoked the memory of Judge James H. Michael, who presided over this ceremony for many years and who relished that role; as the Charlottesville Daily Progress noted in its report on his death last August:

One of Michael’s favorite duties, according to his family, was administering the oath of citizenship at Monticello each July Fourth.

“If I try to put my finger on Harry Michael, nothing better illustrates his philosophy or his notion of America than those annual nationalization ceremonies at Monticello,” said University of Virginia School of Law professor A.E. Dick Howard. “I found those talks very moving. There he was talking to newly minted American citizens about what brings us together, our common ground. I thought that . . . statement of Americanism to new citizens couldn’t be improved upon.”

Judge Jones then introduced Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who lives in Charlotttesville, who told the new citizens: "You refresh us and renew us and we just can't do without you."

"The great thing about America," Judge Wilkinson said, is that "it doesn't matter when your ancestors came. . . . You and I step forward as Americans and fellow citizens." Regardless of when our ancestors came or where they came from, "we're thinking about the future right now. We want an America where there is opportunity and not artificial obstacles."

Judge Wilkinson asked the newly naturalized to "think of how much you did to get here -- how many interviews you did, how many forms you filled out" and then noted that "today is a two-way street. It's not about us telling you, it's about you telling us what America means." He then joined Judge Jones in inviting the new citizens to come to the microphone to say a few words. Several did, almost all expressing pride in being U.S. citizens, with one woman saying she would "die for this country" and others going out of their way to give thanks for all the good things America does around the world. A few just barely choked back tears.

When the remarks ended, Judge Jones asked World War II veteran Earl V. Thacker, Jr., to lead the large crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The ceremonies ended with the Charlottesville Municipal Band playing the "Star-Spangled Banner," under the baton of James W. Simmons, who is retiring this year after 60 years with the band.

As the crowd dispersed, many of the new citizens took the opportunity to register to vote at a table staffed by the Albemarle County office of voter registration. It turns out that the entire Charlottesville Electoral Board was also present, along with some of our City election officials. Fortunately, we evaded a breach of the state open meetings law because there was no time when all three of us were together and we did not discuss official business. (I didn't see any of the County Electoral Board members, though they might have been mingling with the throngs of new citizens and well-wishers.)

For anyone who is a citizen of the United States by birth rather than effort, attending a ceremony like this can be quite instructive. I recommend it as something to do at least once, if not annually.

The Citizenship Test

ImNotEmeril has a link to an online citizenship test that asks some of the same questions that immigrants seeking naturalization have to answer. Not surprisingly, he passed with flying colors. Or, as he puts it, "I get to stay."

Me, too.

How well will you do?

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Frankly, the questions seemed a bit simplistic. So I have to wonder if the test is an authentic example of what candidates for naturalization actually face.

Don't forget to visit ImNotEmeril if you're thinking about attending the Blogs United conference in Martinsville in August. He notes that registration is open and has a link to the conference web site, Blogs United in Martinsville for Free Speech.

Speaking of naturalization, I'm planning to attend the annual Independence Day ceremony to swear in new citizens at Monticello this morning. I have been to several previous ceremonies -- my first time, in 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was the speaker, and in subsequent years I've heard author Frank McCourt, USA Today founder Al Neuharth, and last year's guest speaker, architect I.M. Pei.

This year's featured speakers are environmental artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude. If I'm able to do so, I'll report on the event later today.

Language and Assimilation, Then and Now

The fuss over the Spanish-language version of the "Star Spangled Banner," which I wrote about earlier, continues and may even be picking up pace.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday:

After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism, the Senate yesterday voted to make English the "national language" of the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications or services in a language other than English except for those already guaranteed by law.

The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages. Opponents, however, said it could negate executive orders, regulations, civil service guidances and other multilingual ordinances not officially sanctioned by acts of Congress.

According to a public-opinion survey released on March 30 by the Pew Research Center on the People and the Press,

One of the continuing sources of conflict over the assimilation of immigrants is language, as seen in recurring battles over English-only policies and statutes. A sizable majority of the survey's respondents (58%) said they believe that most recent immigrants do not learn English within a reasonable amount of time; slightly more than a third (35%) say that they do.

Within the case study communities, the belief that immigrants lag behind in the adoption of English ranged from a high of 66% in Phoenix and Las Vegas to 51% in the Washington metro area.

As linguist Geoff Nunberg said on "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" this week:

What's the Spanish for "poppycock"?

The fact is that the vast majority of Hispanics in America already speak English, and the rest are learning it much faster than the Germans, Italians, or those Norwegian bachelor farmers did a century ago.

Back then, after all, the economic incentives for learning English were nowhere near as great as they are now. Most immigrants lived in isolated rural areas or urban ethnic enclaves, and a lot of cities had separate public school systems for immigrants -- not like today's transitional bilingual programs, but schools where all the instruction was carried out in German or other languages.

According to demographers, the average immigrant family in 1900 took more than three generations to make the complete transition to English dominance. Now it takes just over two. By the third or fourth generation, in fact, most Hispanics are as depressingly monolingual in English as any other American group.

Nunberg's fact-based analysis seems to be reflected instinctively by the majority of respondents to the Pew poll, who think independently of those who are demagoguing the immigration debate:

Most people nationwide (61%) who say they have contact with immigrants who speak little or no English say it does not bother them; 38% say they are bothered by this experience. While people in Phoenix and Las Vegas report more contact with immigrants who do not speak English well, majorities in both cities say they are not bothered by this (58% in Phoenix, 56% in Las Vegas).

My own mother was one of those third-generation descendants of immigrants who became monolingual in English only after an early childhood that was monolingual in another language (in this case, Polish). She decided to speak English exclusively at the age of six when kids on the playground made fun of her accent; she spent the rest of her life able to understand spoken Polish, but unable to read it, write it, or speak it herself. (My grandparents, on the other hand, remained bilingual throughout their lives, while my great-grandparents lost the ability to speak or understand English toward the end of their very long lives -- likely more a consequence of senility than a lack of commitment toward American culture and values.)

Nunberg mentions in his "Fresh Air" commentary an article by Ann Powers in the Los Angeles Times, which reports that one of the most popular songs among the pro-immigrant demonstrators is Neil Diamond's tribute to his (East European, Jewish) grandparents, "(They're Coming to) America":

Amid the mariachi music, socially conscious corridos and civil rights hymns at last week's immigration-rights rallies, a surprising voice arose — a strong Jewish baritone usually favored by middle-aged women and retro-hip college kids. It was Neil Diamond, singing his own exodus anthem: "America," from the pop elder statesman's 1980 remake of America's first talkie, "The Jazz Singer."

The recording opened and closed the May 1 speakers' program at City Hall. It's made its way into reports of rallies in Dallas, Kansas City and Milwaukee. Although hardly the official anthem of La Raza, "America's" portrait of travelers "traveling light … in the eye of a storm" is outdoing more standard fare such as "If I Had a Hammer," giving Diamond something like the role Bob Dylan played during the civil rights era of the 1960s. . . .

"It's the immigrant anthem," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA). "Every time I've been at different activities over time, you'll have the Neil Diamond song. It speaks to the experience."

The song is built like a footpath up a monument, the melody swooping downward to rise up again, its key changes and call-and-response elements ("They're coming to America!" "Today!") forcing the tension. Rooted in the Yiddish music of Diamond's Brooklyn youth, the song moves on to Broadway and the Borscht Belt and lands on the edge of disco — a border-crossing trek unto itself. This intentional hugeness, this insistence on being an anthem, makes "America" easy to mock but also impossible to resist.

I find it intriguing, but not incredible, that today's Hispanic immigrants learn English at a faster rate than the immigrants who arrived at about the same time as Neil Diamond's grandparents and my great-grandparents. To learn it tells me that it is never a good idea to simply accept conventional wisdom, but better to explore the facts and use those as a basis for public policy.

Jose, Can You See?

There's an old joke that goes something like this:

A visitor from Latin America attends his first major league baseball game in the United States. When he gets home, a friend asks him what it was like.

"Americans are so friendly and caring," he replied.

"Why do you say that?," his friend asks.

"Well, when I got to the baseball stadium, almost all the tickets were sold out. I was only able to get a seat in the top row of the highest set of bleachers. The baseball players looked like ants from that distance."

"So?," his friend remarks. "How does that make Americans friendly and caring?"

"Just before the game began, to my great delight, the whole crowd stood up and looked at me and sang, 'Jose, can you see?'"

I'm sure I am not the only person to remember that story -- which I swear I first heard in fifth or sixth grade -- during the current kerfuffle about whether the "Star-Spangled Banner" should be sung in Spanish. This has been Topic A of the blogosphere and talk radio, and it has even reached the nosebleed section of American politics: the White House and the U.S. Senate.

Last week, according to Saturday's Washington Post,

President Bush yesterday said "The Star-Spangled Banner" should be sung in English, not Spanish, and condemned plans by some immigrant groups to stage a work protest on Monday to sway the debate over the nation's immigration laws.

With passions running high over the release of "Nuestro Himno," a Spanish-language version of the national anthem, Bush told reporters that people who want to be citizens of the United States should learn English and "ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Today in Congress, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), proposed a resolution that would prohibit the singing or recitation of the words to the "Star-Spangled Banner" in any language but English.

According to The Chattanoogan, a Tennessee newspaper, Alexander said in a floor speech:

“Mr. President, across the country today, thousands and thousands of immigrants – legal and illegal – are marching in a nationwide rally. Many are saying that they, too, want to be Americans.

“But, Mr. President, I’m afraid the message is, quite literally, getting lost in translation. As part of these demonstrations, a new version of our national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, has been produced – in Spanish.

“According to an article in the Washington Post last Friday, at least 389 different versions of our anthem have been produced over the years, in many musical styles, including rock and roll and country. But, the Post also noted, never before has it been rendered in another language."

I'm not sure who was wrong first -- The Post or Senator Alexander -- but that statement is simply, flat-out, factually wrong. There have been plenty of translations of the "Star-Spangled Banner" into other languages, and "Nuestro Himno" is not the first.

Let's just look at a few random Google hits.

There's a Scottish Gaelic translation of the song by Catherine McInnis, called "A' Bhratach Breacadh Nan Reul."

An article dating from 2002, entitled "The 4th of July - Polish-American Style" has this to say about Polish-American patriotic customs:

The vast majority of Polish Americans have celebrated the Fourth of July in various ways for generations. At times of heightened anti-Polish and general anti-foreign sentiment (late 19th/early 20th centuries), the occasion provided our immigrant ancestors with an opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to their adopted American homeland. To this day, Polonians observe the Fourth of July by holding their own parish or club festivities as well as family picnics and outings. The Scranton, Pennsylvania-based Polish National Catholic Church holds a major annual Fourth of July celebration that begins with an open-air Holy Mass under a tent, followed by refreshments, folk-dance performances, music, games and other attractions for the entire family.

A fitting tribute to the occasion might be a Polish-American patriotic commemoration which could showcase the contributions of Kazimierz Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszko to America's independence and honor other Polish-American soldiers who gave their lives in America's defense. Such an observance could include wreath-laying at Kosciuszko, Pulaski or Revolutionary War monuments or war memorials, a dual Polish and American flag-raising and the playing of both countries' national anthems. If your community has the choral capacity, an interesting twist might be the public performance of a Polish-language version of the "Star Spangled Banner."

The only known translation of the American national anthem into Polish was the work of Chicago lawyer and life-long Polish National Alliance activist, Walery J. Fronczak (1893-1886)[Note: I think this should read 1893-1986 -- RS]. The text, published by Chicago's Polish-language "Relax" magazine (March 28, 1987) and reprinted in Wojciech Bialasiewicz's "W kregu Chicagowskiej Polonii", went as follows:

Gwiazdzisty Sztandar
O, czy widzisz Ty - wczesny swit spedza mrok.
Sztandar, co duma nas napawal przy zorz sklonie
I czarem swych barw, gwiazd, gdy go przez wa_ strzegl wzrok,
Lsnia, chociaz krwawy boj nikl w wieczora oslonie?
Przez cala noc ryk dzial, i blysk rakiet wiesc slal,
ze jeszcze ten nasz pelen sily znak stal.
O, czy gwiazdzisty sztandar powiewa jak wprzod,
Kedy wzrosl wolny kraj, gdzie wzniosl dom dzielny lud?

O, niech tak bedzie wciaz, gdy stanie wolny lud,
By uchronic swoj kraj od zniszczen wojny, glodu!
Niech z niebios laska kraj triumf swieci przez trud,
Niechaj slawi te Moc, ktora Stra__ Narodu.
W proch pasc musi nasz wrog.
Bo prawa bronim drog.
To haslo tkwi w nas:
"Wiara! Z nami wciaz Bog!"
O, niech gwiazdzisty sztandar powiewa jak wprzod,
Kady wzrosl wolny kraj, gdzie wzniosl dom dzielny lud.

And at a very interesting web site called "NationalAnthems.us Online Forum," one finds translations into Swedish, Indonesian, Finnish, German, and even Esperanto.

On the same site, you can find a facsimile of an original Yiddish translation dating to 1943, and a facsimile of the sheet music for a Spanish version dating to 1919! At least two German translations can be traced to the Civil War -- and somehow I can't imagine President Lincoln tut-tutting about German soldiers fighting for the Union who wanted to sing "O! sagt, könnt ihr seh'n."

Ignorance does not mix well with xenophobia, though the two far too often walk hand in hand.