Immigration Debate

My Reply to S. Rowley's Opinions, Thursday, August 30, 2007:

It's obvious to any enlightened person reading S. Rowley's comments above, that he/she does not know what he/she is talking about. His/Her views are absurd. But, you see this is the tragedy about the whole "immigration debate:" It is not steeped in actualities, those historical and present global pressures that form the relationship between the United States and Mexico. Frankly, it's exhausting to read these letters and respond to them. But, I choose to do so for a variety of reasons: 1) because the people who think like S. Rowley truly believe that they have the corner on what it means to be an American; 2) most Americans (about 95%) don't have a clue as to the historical, symbiotic relationship that has formed over the centuries between the United States and Mexico; 3) As an American, I choose to maintain links to my mother culture: Mexico. Why would I want to do that? Because my history and the History of most Mexican-Americans does not begin with the English colonization of North America. Our History and Experience of "America" begins 30 centuries ago. Why would I want to give that up for a history of only 200 some years to prove that I am an American? Well, here's the rub: I DON'T have to prove anything to any American. I was born here. My parents were born here. My grand-parents were born here. My great grand-parents were born here and on and on into the past as far back as Meso-American civilation extends.

Let me give you another perspective to illustrate more accurately what I am trying to reach for and say in this article. This is from the tome ( and I mean TOME) Mexico: Splendors of Thirty Centuries published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Bullfinch Press in 1990. In this book, the reader will find a thoroughly breath-taking essay on the history of Mexico. Nowhere have I ever encountered an author/intellectual that understands the core essence of his People than Octavio Paz. What depth and illumination he brings to the understanding, not just of Mexico, but Mexico in relation to itself and to its history with the United States. His history begins thus:

"The history of Mexico is no less intricate that its geography. Two civilations have lived and fought not only across its territory but in the soul of every Mexican. One is native to these lands [e. g., Arizona]; the other originated outside but is no so deeply rooted that it is a part of the Mexican people's very being. Two civilizations and, within each of them, distinct societies frequently divided by differences of culture and concerns. Internal sunderings, external confrontations, ruptures, and revolutions. Violent leaps from one historical period to another, from polytheism to Christianity, from absolute monarchy to republic, from traditional to modern society. Prolonged lethargy and sudden insurrection. Nevertheless, through all these upheavals one can perceive a will that tends, again and again, toward synthesis. Again the figure of the pyramid appears: convergences of the different cultures and societies, the superposition of centuries and eras. The pyramid conciliates oppositions but does not annul them... The process (rupture-reintegration-rupture-reintegration) can be taken as a leitmotif of the history of Mexico. The true name of this process is the will for life. Or, to be more precise, the will for survival whether faced with discord and defeat or mere uncertainty with the dawn of each new day. At sometimes blind, sometimes lucid, but always secretly astir, even when it adopts the passive form of traditionalism."

The point that I'm attempting to make herein is this: Octavio Paz has defined my history. A history that precedes the United States of America, but because of this inherent Mexican characteristic, this "will to live" my history includes no less than Mexico's shared history with the United States. One cannot discuss the history of the two countries without taking into account the currently unbalanced, but no less interdependent relationship, between the two countries. And because of the way in which these two countries have interacted with each other over the centuries there has resulted a unique way of experiencing being an American: I experience my history as a transcendence of both nations. I see that it is possible to be both Mexican and American while being (Mexican-American). It's this synthesis that I am attempting to articulate and that Octavio Paz is directing the reader to comprehend in his essay.

Here's the dichotomy: first, second and third generation Mexican-Americans are under enormous pressure to "assimilate," or more appropriately, to become "Anglicized." As they become more educated and more prosperous economically, they speak less and less Spanish and deliberately avoid showing any indication that they are children of Mexican immigrants.. I (and others like me) who were born in the United States don't feel the need to assimilate. Why? Because we have already assimilated.. We don't have to prove that we are American--because we know we are American. We also understand that to be an American, i. e., someone that believes in the Idea of America as expressed in Our Founding Documents does not mean that we have to forgo our ancestry. Why? Because there is a deep and resonating power in acknowledging and accepting that which is Mexican. It's a deep, deep feeling that honors our past and future. And, as Octavio Paz stated, "one can perceive a will that tends, again and again, toward synthesis. Again the figure of the pyramid appears: convergences of the different cultures and societies, the superposition of centuries and eras. The pyramid conciliates oppositions but does not annul them." This is what we bring to the United States: the ability to synthesize, or to put it more accurately to perform mestizaje. American history, the version handed down to Americans to this day, has failed time and time again to synthesize and create a true nation under God, because it has inherited this false-sense of supremacy over anyone, or anything that cannot find its origins in the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the Puritans and Calvinists. And, more importantly and crucial for our modern and future sense of being an "American," the national discussion must move beyond framing it as simply being a discussion between "White and African" America. Our national conscience must view that being an American goes beyond these parameters. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why letters like S. Rowley's must be challenged. Because his/her attitudes are glaringly founded in ignorance, intolerance, and yes, racism. Equality and synthesis do not mean sameness. I reject out-of-hand such a supposition on the very grounds of the U. S. Constitution itself. No one is going to abridge my right to free speech--even if it means I choose to do it in Spanish--and to celebrate that which is truly American: being a (Mexican-American)**.

Paul N. Rubi

**(Mexican-American) written in this manner is a way of articulating the idea of synthesis; i. e., mestizaje (pronounced mes-tee-sah-heh).

Category: Immigration