Letter from Brighton Beach
This section of Brooklyn is known as Brighton Beach, but in recent decades it has also come to be known as Little Odesa, because of the large population of Russians and people from the countries of the former Soviet Union - including Ukraine - who have made it their home in the New World.
Like immigrants from other countries they came to New York City for a better life. They saw greater freedoms here and greater economic opportunity. They have tried their best to re-create aspects of their homeland here in New York just as other ethnic groups have over the course of American history.
The business signs are printed in English and Cyrillic. The smells are of cabbage, and pastry, sausage, and potato. The real estate is by the sea, next to that all-American place - Coney Island - and under the elevated subway. It will do. It is at least as good as what they left behind and a better future is within sight. It can be reached by subway.
As the Russian war on Ukraine enters its second year the people of Little Odesa are busy with their new lives. The troubles of home no doubt confirm their decision to leave. They keep track of what’s going on through what must seem like unfiltered news coverage. The money transfer outlets on every street corner suggest they stay connected with those they left behind.
For most of my adult life the former Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation have been seen as rivals of the United States. It may be the main reason our country is more welcoming of some immigrants than others. Each Soviet or Russian emigre, each arrival from one of the countries of the former Soviet Union, represents a small victory of our country over our Cold War competitors. Proof we are on the right side.
The same cannot be said for people trying to enter the United States for similar reasons from other countries. Some immigrants are unwanted. The welcome signs are not out. For random reasons of language, skin color, and geography; they need not apply.
There are peculiarities about the debate over immigration in the United States that challenge logic. Dividing lines are drawn by region, by political party, and by economic standing. In general, conservative Republicans tend to be the most hardline when it comes to defining who should be allowed to be an American and under what circumstances. This leaves most Democrats either arguing for a more open system or at the very least, a more orderly one.
The conservative position is peculiar because conservatives often argue for open competition, merit based advancement, and a level playing field. Why then are conservative Americans - who have every built-in advantage over a new immigrant to the United States - so fearful of losing a fair contest against someone who comes here with almost nothing more than a willingness to risk it all for a better life? Isn’t pulling yourself up through hard work the essence of conservatism?
It is also true that those who are most concerned about immigration live near the southern border, and in rural sections of the country in the south and the west. Concern about surging numbers of migrants coming here is a legitimate concern for both the migrants and those who live on the border. Further from the border the concern seems less urgent.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens living in western states, for example, have immigrant backgrounds themselves. The states they inhabit, in some cases, have only been states for roughly 150 years. As a matter of fact, the most anti-immigrant Americans have little standing to make the argument they are making. They are in no position to declare themselves to be judge on the issue of who is an American. Many of their ancestors, quite recently, were not.
Historically, resistance to outsiders always fades. The American writer Mark Twain famously said, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” The same might be said of familiarity. Once the other is your neighbor prejudice falls away and almost without fail differences are celebrated and even adopted.
Almost every American region and every American city is built on the story of immigrants. There are Little Italys, Chinatowns, Little Haitis, and Little Odesas. We are - all of us - Americans. All making our way, unwelcome at first, but eventually part of a country of leftovers from other places and other societies.
At a news conference in December a Ukrainian journalist asked President Biden why the U.S. can not “cut to the chase” and give her country the weapons it needs to defeat Russia on the battlefield now, today, instead of several months from now when the timing feels right? The same question might be asked of us when it comes to immigration.
For now we are comfortable accepting immigrants from Ukraine, because Ukraine is at war with our long time enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my new neighbor. We are not comfortable however with immigrants from the global south, from Central America, from South America. Although most immigrants choose to leave their homeland to escape oppression and to seek freedom and economic opportunity, not every immigrant story is compelling to our uneven sense of fellowship.
The current partisan make-up of the U.S. Congress seems to present a formula for gridlock for the next two years. Except on the issue of immigration. A divided Congress means both political parties have a responsibility to lead. The immigration crisis playing out on the southern border provides a leadership opportunity for both sides. Campaign politics is the only force that has blocked meaningful reform for close to two decades. Both sides have a chance to claim victory by compromising on new laws that are both compassionate and fair. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the conservative thing to do. To even the playing field and to encourage growth through competition.
It can work. It has worked. It is what makes this country work. It is on display for all to see everyday in a small patch of America, at the tip of New York City, known as Little Odesa.
