EvC Forum: Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

I received this in an e-mail:

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

On further investigation I found this:
Humor & Whimsy

Theodore Roosevelt indeed wrote these words, but not in 1907 while he was still president. The passages were culled from a letter he wrote to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919, three days before Roosevelt died.

"Americanization" was a favorite theme of Roosevelt's during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against "hyphenated Americans" and the prospect of a nation "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."

He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."

He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called "fifty-fifty allegiance." In a speech made in 1917 he said, "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."

So while the source of the quote is in error the jist of the argument is not.

Now we can talk about the validity of requiring everyone to speak a common tongue in any nation -- and the need for clear communication between people -- (or require other common behaviors) but that doesn't necessarily bear on the isssue of divided allegiances.

This is the focus I want to pursue: can anyone with a divided allegiance be a fully committed american or are they, at heart, ready to forgo {america} for that {other} allegiance at any time?

If there is a conflict between the two which is favored?

Now for the kicker: the divided allegiance I am talking about is based on religion.

America is a secular government with a secular constitution specifically set up to favor no one religion. It is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Is it possible for a person committed to any one religion -- to the extent that they think america needs to be changed for that religion to be properly recognized -- to truly be an undivided american?

Let the games begin.

Enjoy.

3 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1