Bobby Jindal: The son of immigrants and new champion of the tough-on-immigrants crowd

Washington Post (The Fix)

By Janell Ross

July 4, 2015

Bobby Jindal: The son of immigrants and new champion of the tough-on-immigrants crowd

Bobby Jindal lives in a very interesting and unique political space.

He's one of many, many men and one woman vying for the GOP nomination in 2016. He's a young governor but is widely regarded as a withered-though-once-rising political star. He's the first Indian-American to be considered a serious candidate for the White House, but he shuns that label and believes that every American should strive to live a non-hyphenated experience.

He's the pro-melting pot candidate in a world in which the American salad bowl is seen as a hipper or at least more inclusive national metaphor. He expresses significant concern about the danger he insists some immigrants can represent in the United States and countries abroad. And this month, all of that may have attracted more attention than Jindal's formal announcement that he's running for president.

First, a bit of background.

In January, Jindal took a trip to Europe, gave some speeches and did some interviews. They included the idea that some European countries have mistakenly allowed Muslim immigrants to establish almost autonomous communities in which strict religious laws, known as Sharia, govern life. Some of these places had become "no-go" zones for non-Muslims, Jindal claimed.

Amid criticism that his comments were not only counterfactual but flavored by more than a little bit of influence from people like Pamela Geller, who has long warned of the dangers created by so-called "creeping Sharia," Jindal doubled down. In a satellite interview from London with CNN, Jindal said:

I knew that by speaking the truth we were going to make people upset. ... The huge issue, the big issue in non-assimilation is the fact that you have people that want to come to our country but not adopt our values, not adopt our language and in some cases want to set apart their own enclaves and hold on to their own values. I think that’s dangerous.

Then in February, Jindal came to Washington, D.C., addressed an anti-Common Core curriculum organization, and repeated these thoughts.

All that was looming in the backdrop when Jindal announced his bid for the White House on June 24. And true to his politics, Jindal's speech included references to the exceptionalism of America, the experiences of his immigrant parents and the "assault" that Christianity faces.

Then, he went on.

As for me, I’m sick and tired of people dividing Americans. And I’m done with all this talk about hyphenated Americans. We are not Indian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, rich Americans, or poor Americans – we are all Americans.

While I’m at it, here’s another thing you aren’t allowed to say, but I’m going to say it anyway: We cannot allow people to immigrate to this country so that they can use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms. ... It is not unreasonable to demand that if you immigrate to America, you must do so legally, and you must be ready and willing to embrace our values, learn English and roll up your sleeves and get to work.

That was all too much for a certain subset of Americans. For those whose social media accounts have yet to feature the #Jindian and #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite hashtags, please brace yourself.

Writer Hari Kondabolu, formerly part of the writing team at the now-canceled political comedy show "Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell," told the publication Colorlines that after Jindal's announcement, he was irritated. Kondabolu, who is Indian American, was bothered by what he sees as Jindal's cynical games with race and identity, fear of immigrants and the desire of older Indian Americans to be fully included in American life. So, he started the #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite hashtag.

Then, he went at Jindal hard. Real hard.

Soon, someone else shared their sense that Jindal pulled a downright #jindian move when he allowed official and unofficial gubernatorial portraits of himself to depict a man whose skin mysteriously appeared several shades lighter than Jindal's own to be hung in public spaces.

It wasn't long before conservative fans of Jindal and others rose to Jindal's defense. They described the online commentary as deeply offensive, inappropriate, cruel and an exemplar of the left's hypocrisy. Jindal's campaign even had some fun with it, printing T-shirts with the slogan "Tanned. Rested. Ready."

All that might have faded into the mass of ideas shared on social media if a pro-Jindal super PAC hadn't begun running ads in Iowa in recent days playing up -- what else -- Jindal's views about immigrants.

“I think our immigration system is broken,” Jindal said in a clip included in the ad. “If folks want to immigrate to America, they should do so legally. They should adopt our values. They should learn English. And they should roll up their sleeves and get to work.”

Here, we see the super PAC's version of Jindal, equipped and willing to say what others won't or can't about America's immigrants -- perhaps because he is the brown-skinned son of Indian Hindu immigrants. He "learned" English. He speaks with a vaguely Southern-American-inflected accent. He converted to Christianity. He rejects a life in which Indian Americans don't focus on the latter portion of that label. Why can't others just do the same? In fact, Jindal should be trusted to lead the United States, the argument goes, precisely because of all of the above.

Jindal seems to subscribe to the idea that immigrants arrive with a range of deficits and can't become better until they become American in the ways that he believes matter. In the ad, it seems Jindal is American precisely because he believes in a constant effort to emulate and approximate "standard American-ness" -- what many would say is actually white-ness or at least a very muted Indian-American-ness -- whenever and however possible.

Think that's reading a little too deeply? In January, while in London, Jindal shared these insights:

I am not suggesting for one second that people should be shy or embarrassed about their ethnic heritage. But I am explicitly saying that it is completely reasonable for nations to discriminate between allowing people into their country who want to embrace their culture, or allowing people into their country who want to destroy their culture, or establish a separate culture within.

Now, to be very clear, there are very large shares of Americans who share Jindal's views.

The 2014 General Social Survey -- one of the most expansive looks at social attitudes and change in United States each year since 1972 -- found that a full 93 percent of Americans said that being able to speak English is very or fairly important to being an American, compared to just 64 percent who said that one's birthplace determines whether or not you're an American. In that same poll, 92 percent pointed to citizenship and 91 percent said following America's laws make you an American.

But lest anyone think that Jindal's views are all there is, also consider this:

In a September 2012 CNN/Opinion Research poll, Americans were nearly evenly split on questions of cultural assimilation. About 48 percent said it is better for the United States to encourage immigrants to blend in by "giving up some important aspects of their own culture." But 44 percent said the country should encourage, "immigrants to maintain their own culture" even if it means they "do not blend as well." And 5 percent said they thought some mixture of both approaches would be ideal.

Finally, a Pew Research Center poll released in June 2014 found some appreciable differences between the way that white, black and Latino Americans view immigrants. And not surprisingly, there were even bigger differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Now, Jindal is certainly entitled to advance whatever themes and policy ideas he thinks best. It's also worth noting that the content of the super PAC's ads are outside Jindal's control, even if they were created from snippets of his public speeches and closely mirror his own, oft-used rhetoric.

But it's also clear that Jindal is one of the few candidates -- besides Donald Trump -- who has decided that talking about the threats he believes are posed by unassimilated immigrants is part of his path to the White House.

Conservative defenders would do well not to aggressively police the way that Indian Americans discuss or even ridicule Jindal's choices. That obscures the kind of learning and information exchange -- no matter how embarrassing, squirm-inducing or painful -- that every American surely knows can come from humor and debate.

At the same time, those who would dismiss Jindal as a political actor worthy of nothing more than identity-centered ridicule might do well to think about just how appealing a candidate willing to talk tough on immigration and push assimilation and speaking English can be to many Americans.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com