ABSTRACT
Questions about who counts in the United States, the benefits and problems associated with immigration, and the meaning/legacy of the melting pot have not disappeared since the great wave of European immigration ended in the 1920s. Indeed, the debates in 2004 are sounding a lot like those in 1904. The stakes are high as would-be residents seek to join the American experience, and a new breed of nativist work to preserve what they consider the nation’s threatened integrity. A typical reflection of their efforts is the title of a recent newspaper article: “Immigration to cost states seven seats, study claims” (J. Abrams A15). A spokesman for the anti-immigrant think tank that conducted the study offered such classic nativist scare statements as “[redistribution is a] distortion of the political system in which seats are taken away from citizens and reallocated in effect to noncitizens” and “this can be seen as distorting our democracy.” The language of whim and unfairness is consistent throughout: California will “end up” with extra seats, while other states “lost” seats or “failed to get” the ones that were rightfully coming to them. Some states will be “deprived” of their fair representation. New arrivals are jeopardizing the very foundations of the political system.
