When I was a young kid, one of my favorite cartoons was “Voltron.” Looking back now, it had a very simple plot, almost comically so. In every episode, some type of monster would threaten Earth, and the five main characters attacked them in their flying robot lions. They generally did a decent job. However, eventually the bad guys built something strong enough to defeat the heroes. Then, just before all looked lost, one of them inevitably suggested, in effect, “Guys, I think we should form Voltron.”
The five lions then flew together, combining into one enormous robot who pulled out a Blazing Sword, destroyed the bad guy in about 30 seconds, and saved the universe. What made it comical was that in the next episode, they completely forgot about Voltron and started the whole process over again, fighting individually. The plot is understandable in that if they just formed Voltron in the beginning, it would be a five-minute cartoon. I have no idea if the writers intended to teach us a lesson or not, but they did. Strength does not come from division but from unity.
In recent years, this has become a matter of debate. Some claim our diversity is our strength, while others argue that strength comes from unity. Immigration sits directly in the middle of that debate.
Historically, immigrants have brought different languages, religions, foods, customs, and traditions that have enriched our country. While immigration has been debated since the birth of our nation, much of the question revolves around how much an immigrant should assimilate into American culture versus how much of their own culture they should retain. The modern question now seems to be how much difference a society can allow while still preserving its original culture. Historically speaking, there are three metaphors that help explain the debate: the melting pot, the garden salad, and parallel societies.
The melting pot is perhaps the most familiar. It suggests that immigrants from different places gradually blend with American culture. This does not necessarily mean that immigrants completely abandon their heritage; rather, they combine their heritage with a larger American identity. This was popular in the early days of our republic, when much of the immigration came from Western European nations that were, in many ways, more similar than different from the people already living here.
The garden salad offers a different vision. Instead of melting everything together, the ingredients remain recognizable. The lettuce does not have to become a tomato, and the tomato does not have to become a cucumber. Each retains its distinctive characteristics, but they are all in the same bowl. That’s the important part. Applied to immigration, this means people can retain their ethnic identities while still becoming part of a common American society. In this sense, cultural diversity and national unity are not necessarily opposites.
This became more common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as many more Eastern European, Latin American, and Asian peoples began to immigrate in larger numbers. The distinction is important because maintaining a culture is not the same thing as refusing to integrate. These immigrants often established ethnic communities for protection and identity. Chinese immigrants, for example, created Chinatowns which provided places to worship, conduct business, and support one another. Such communities did not automatically mean that their residents rejected American society. Many became deeply involved in the economic, political, and cultural life of the country. In essence, they wanted to embrace the values that brought them here to begin with.
The problem arises when the garden salad becomes a collection of separate bowls. Some critics argue this is happening with modern immigration. This is the concern behind the idea of parallel societies. A parallel society is more than an ethnic community that maintains its traditions. It describes a situation in which different groups increasingly live within the same country but maintain separate social worlds without the need to unify behind a common culture.
Modern immigration is considerably more diverse, including substantial numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people with no religious affiliation. This does not mean that these immigrants cannot become fully American; millions have. The issue is not whether a Muslim can remain Muslim, a Hindu remain Hindu, or a Jew remain Jewish; the issue is whether every group accepts the same civil law and the basic principles of the constitutional order. A garden salad can contain very different ingredients, but they still have to occupy the same bowl, a bowl built around traditional Western liberal ideas of liberty, equality, self-government, and the rule of law. Fighting these ideals does more harm than good to our nation.
The lesson we can learn from Voltron is not that everyone has to become the same. The five lions never became identical; each remained a distinct machine with its own pilot and purpose. Their strength came from their ability to unite around something larger than themselves. That may be the better historical lesson for immigration as well. America does not need immigrants to erase every part of their heritage. But a diverse nation still needs a shared Voltron, a common civic identity and set of values strong enough to bring its different parts together.
It is not our differences that make us strong; it is our ability to bring our differences together for a common goal.
