Reflections on America’s 250th

by Liz Anderson on July 4, 2026

It’s hard not to feel glum as I write this post on the 250th anniversary of my country. I remember celebrating the 200th as a teenager. As I recall it, it felt like the country was ready forward to better times. The Vietnam War and Watergate were over. Americans celebrated the 200th with exuberance. Today, the stagnant, possibly toxic state of the Reflecting Pool, along with Trump’s hijacking of Congress’s America250 funds for his personal Freedom250 group to create an empty and lifeless Great American State Fair on the National Mall, perfectly symbolize Trump’s enshittification of America.

However fitting it may be to be glum, a country cannot move forward if it has no hope. So I offer the following hopeful thoughts about the U.S., starting with a speech made some years ago.

A man wrote me and said: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”

Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.

This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost. . . .

It is bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity, who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others. They give more than they receive. They labor and succeed. And often they are entrepreneurs. But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American.

These words were spoken by Ronald Reagan, in his last address as President.

I know many immigrants and first-generation Americans for whom Reagan’s words ring true even today. Many are my current or former students. One is my son-in-law, who is first-generation American and ethnically Chinese-Dominican. How could that even be?! His family’s story perfectly exemplifies what Reagan was talking about. His grandmother was a teenage peasant in a small Chinese village during Mao’s famine. She wanted to leave the country to avoid starvation. She lied about her age so she could marry a young man in the village and plan their exit together. In those days, China prevented emigration to non-Communist countries. But it allowed them to emigrate to Cuba, which had recently undergone its Communist revolution. Cuba offered them visas on condition of spending some years of virtual slave labor in its sugar plantations. That was better than starving, so they agreed. But they wanted freedom. After serving the requisite years, they were allowed to leave Cuba for the Dominican Republic. They still had to live under a dictatorship. But they enjoyed more freedom and opportunity. They set up a small grocery store and restaurant in a remote village, attained modest prosperity, and raised a daughter there. Still seeking more freedom, the family immigrated to the U.S. Their daughter gave birth to my son-in-law in New York City. Contra J.D. Vance, and in line with Reagan’s perspective, he’s a more patriotic American than many of my students whose families trace their American ancestry further back. Birthright citizenship truly is a great thing.

The share of immigrants in the U.S. population reached a local demographic peak (15-16%) under the Biden administration. (ICE brutality under Trump 2 has pushed it down slightly.) Every time this has happened in U.S. history with people entering from new corners of the world, an immigration backlash has occurred. But every time, the U.S. has gotten over the backlash. If Americans are true to our history, we will do so this time as well.

{ 10 comments }

1

engels 07.04.26 at 9:28 pm

More than 16% of the current UK population was born abroad.

Anyway, as a subject of Charles III, I just want to say: it’s never too late to change your mind.

2

novakant 07.04.26 at 10:43 pm

I grant you that the US has a bit of an edge when it comes to birthright citizenship. But looking at the football teams of e.g. France or even Germany I would like to think that Reagan’s assumption is a bit outdated. Also, the American identity comes at a cost: it is built on the erasure of its indigenous people, it has to be constantly reiterated via a huge propaganda operation and its inner contradictions are often externalised by fighting the enemy du jour abroad. Nevertheless, there is something admirable about it, as in theory it is based on ideas rather than blood.

3

Matt Lister 07.05.26 at 3:13 am

he’s a more patriotic American than many of my students whose families trace their American ancestry further back. Birthright citizenship truly is a great thing.

This is an interesting idea. I think that the philosophical arguments for jus soli citizenship laws are largely pragmatic/practical – they are about what gives better or worse results, on different scales. Because of that, we might think that the different situations of different countries would favor different rules. But, I hadn’t given much thought, in my own writing on these rules, to the idea that different ones would have significantly different impacts on attitudes towards the country of one’s birth. It seems pretty plausible in retrospect. Australia (where I live now and where I’m a naturalized citizen) has a weaker form of jus soli citizenship than the US does. Citizenship is immediate at birth if one has at least one permanent resident parent (or citizen parent, but that can be explained in other ways). If both parents are temporary residents (or unlawful non-citizens), the child must live in Australia for 10 consecutive years without leaving to gain citizenship. No doubt it would be hard to investigate, for all sorts of reasons, but I would be interested to know if this lead to lesser feelings of attachement and love of country than immediate citizenship would, for otherwise similarly situated people.

4

Alan White 07.05.26 at 4:00 am

I wish to be hopeful too, but almost every day my regional paper–the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel–has stories of people that ICE arrests who have no criminal records. And this is happening all over the country and not generally covered well by the media. One recent arrest in Texas–a nun going to mass–received wide coverage, and she was released by the backlash. But that is the exception. We are in an unprecedented use of Nazi-like power to push non-criminal non-white immigrants out of the country for no other reason than they do not look like the president. And they are doing this to the tune of 2000 people a day. The fall elections are our only hope–and Trump and his minions are doing everything to undo any prospect of that. I will only chime in about hope after that, if we have truly fair elections that express the majority of us that hate what is happening to this country.

5

J-D 07.05.26 at 8:38 am

These words were spoken by Ronald Reagan, in his last address as President.

With customary detachment from the facts.

A man wrote me and said:

Really? Really? Was the then President prefiguring the current President’s stories about big, strong men coming up to him with tears in their eyes to tell him–well, to tell him whatever it is he then wants to repeat?

You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.

I could mention the name of one of the most salient figures in the history of the last century who went to live in Germany and then became a German. I will instead mention the name of Benedict (or ‘Benico’) Mallah, the grandfather of Nicolas Sarkozy, who went to live in France and then became a Frenchman.

It is true that the percentage of the population of the United States accounted for by immigrants is high by world standards, but it is also true that there are many countries where the percentage is higher, including, on the latest UN figures, Germany and France (not to mention my own).

The USA has accepted and absorbed many immigrants, and that’s good, but let’s not be deceived by boosterism into supposing it exceptional.

6

RobinM 07.06.26 at 8:48 pm

I’m sure I’m not alone in finding it oddly amusing that Folarin Balogun, whom Trump, doing what he does best, seems to have helped get reinstated in the US’s football team for the match against Belgium, is an “accidental citizen” of the US of Nigerian origins. His mother wasn’t allowed to fly back to Britain from New York when she was 7 months preganant with him. So Folarin came to be born in New York and lived here for 2 months. But birthright citizenship qualifies him to play for the US.

It also qualifies/requires him to pay US income taxes no matter where he is living and playing. But Trump may pardon him on that score? (When he’s at it, he could pardon some other accidental citizens I know.)

Meantime will FIFA survive Trump’s chaotic intervention?

7

engels 07.06.26 at 9:23 pm

Btw on the citizenship point I have younger family members who are legally Americans (because parents were working over there when they popped out) and this makes no sense to me. They don’t think of themselves as Americans, seem to have no attachment to America discernible to me, having only been back for one weekend in 15 years, and in fact seem largely indifferent; though presumably this might change later if they get a call from the IRS.

8

engels 07.06.26 at 9:38 pm

9

JPL 07.07.26 at 4:38 am

RobinM@6:

I was saying before the match that the US team should not play Balogun, to leave him on the bench, and to give as their reason the illicit intervention by the US President. In all sports, the decision of the referee/umpire/judge on the ground is final. (I also thought that the play did not deserve a red card. But no reason has even been given for changing the call.) No doubt vague unease about this ethical violation was reflected in the dispirited performance of the team today. It could have been different.

10

engels 07.14.26 at 10:51 am

Comments on this entry are closed.