Growing up in an Arizona border town five minutes from Mexico, elementary school soccer games would often start up with shouts of, "Mexicans versus Americans!"
This was why I found stories about the early United States intriguing. Stories where different cultural and ideological groups independently settled across the country, to try and establish their own ideal communities, were fascinating.
Even more fascinating is the way these groups later began to assemble and collectively discuss the issues that affected them, laying the roots of our federal government as a precursor to the American melting pot.
But looking at the way immigration is approached in our state today, and the response immigrants receive, I can't help thinking that some of us have forgotten our openness to diverse groups seeking to discover themselves on our country's land and join the American exchange.
The concern was most recently brought up while listening to the discussions surrounding the list of new propositions dealing with immigration, especially Proposition 103, which sought to affirm English as our state language.
The proposition requires government procedures and actions to be undertaken largely in English.
Supporters of the proposition held that the measure was needed to preserve the state's identity. They also said it would encourage assimilation and simplify the procedures and costs of government action.
More seriously than soccer games, I've seen many of the social and economic tensions that can come up when two seemingly disparate groups seek to establish lives and communities in the same small space.
I also know that the America of today is not the same as it was in its formative years, and that the character and possibilities of immigration have changed.
For one, it is both illegal and grossly unrealistic for a new group to walk in and settle on some remote land and begin building a community.
Assimilation is therefore a necessity that presents itself much earlier than it used to.
Still, because our country is made up of complex and confusing bureaucracies, government structures and social systems, stepping into life in America is not as easy as joining in the discussion at the local town hall.
To be involved in the intricacies of local, state and national government and discourse requires a level of proficiency in American ways and institutions that takes a proactive effort.
When I listen to the arguments of many of those who supported Proposition 103, I begin to think that the motivation of some is a sort of territorial defense against a perceived threat, which sets itself up against the honorable approach to the diversity of early America.
Some of those who supported the proposition, fearing the faltering of government and social systems as they are, and with a desire to make sure that their own way of life is preserved, are passing by the America that existed as a true melting pot.
They are advocating, instead, a spirit of an inflexible rule of assimilation that leaves behind true exchange for a system that might allow for a little spice to be stirred in, but not so much that might change the flavor of what has been made so far.
While I could see a need for measures like Proposition 103, ultimately, I am still undecided, not being sure of the need to preserve our national language, the actual effects of such new laws and the character of the principles they essentially lay on.
However, any actions that are taken should be done in the true American spirit that accepts the initiation and contributions of new groups who want to live full American freedom, rather than being founded on a selfish spirit striving to benefit its own at the expense of the new and the marginalized.
Matthew Bowman is an English literature senior, and can be reached at: matthew.bowman@asu.edu.
