pull down to refresh
I appreciate you sharing that. I could say the same as an Asian American. I'm not going to argue with your personal experiences or how they've shaped your perspective.
I wasn't describing an America that has always existed in practice. I was describing the civic ideal that I think we've been striving toward, sometimes successfully, sometimes failing badly.
Where we continue to disagree is that I don't see support for assimilation, border enforcement, or a more restrictive immigration system as inherently conflicting with that ideal. Nor do I think those positions necessarily imply a desire to preserve a particular racial majority.
I think we both want an America where people are judged by their commitment to the country and its values rather than by race. We just differ on whether the administration's rhetoric and policies move us toward or away from that goal.
It appears to me that you are retreating into an idealized version of restrictionism rather than confronting the actual movement and administration we are dealing with today.
Or maybe I'm just evaluating the administration differently than you are. Disagreeing with your conclusion isn't the same as denial or retreating from the evidence. I think we've both made our arguments, and readers can decide for themselves.
When you can clearly define:
• the “civic ideal” you believe we’ve been striving toward,
• what assimilation means beyond speaking English and obeying the law,
• what you mean by “American values,”
• and how this administration’s repeated rhetoric and policies move us toward that ideal,
then I’ll have a much clearer picture of your argument.
This feels like and endless rabbit hole, like every time I answer one question, you replace it with four more. You keep shifting the discussion. It started with immigration policy, then to motives, then my motives, and now defend an entire political philosophy.
I don't think I owe you a dissertation to disagree with your conclusion. I've explained my position several times. You disagree with it. That's fine. At this point it seems any interpretation other than yours gets labeled as denial.
Readers can decide which interpretation they find more persuasive.
I didn’t move the goalposts.
I asked you to define the terms that are doing the heavy lifting in your argument.
Until we agree on what assimilation, American values, and civic ideal mean, we’re likely talking past each other.
For example, the only concrete definition of assimilation I can identify in your argument is speaking English and following the law.
If you mean something more than that, I am simply asking you to define it.
As I eluded to earlier...by assimilation, I don't mean abandoning your heritage. I mean embracing a common civic identity, such as speaking a common language in public life, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, participating in civic institutions, and viewing yourself as american first while remaining free to preserve your cultural traditions. It doesn't have to be more than that.
My point, though, doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on a perfect definition. It depends on the fact that there are multiple plausible reasons someone could support a more restrictive immigration policy that don't require the motive you're attributing to them.
What evidence would convince you that the primary objective is border enforcement and a more selective legal immigration system rather than the motive you've attributed to the administration?
For example, the only concrete definition of assimilation I can identify in your argument is speaking English and following the law.
80% of the problem with mass immigration has been not speaking English and not following the law.
Are assimilation, American values, civic ideal, or cultural homogeneity defined anywhere in the Constitution or founding documents?
The Constitution authorizes a uniform rule of naturalization, but it does not require cultural sameness.
So when those terms carry your argument, asking you to define them is not moving the goalposts. It is asking what standard you are actually proposing.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident."
The revolution itself was an assertion of cultural values.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That is a universal civic ideal, not a definition of cultural homogeneity or assimilation.
The same nation proclaiming those words enslaved Black people, excluded women from political citizenship, and limited naturalization to “free white persons.”
So quoting the Declaration does not answer the question:
What specific cultural standard must immigrants satisfy beyond obeying the law, participating civically, and learning English, and who gets to decide?
You’re describing an America I have never experienced.
I’m a Black American. I speak English. I believe in the Constitution. I respect the rule of law. Yet I’ve spent my life being reminded that many people do not see me as fully belonging. My children have already been called racial slurs at school.
So when you describe America as a “racially diverse but culturally homogeneous” nation, I genuinely want to know:
What period of American history are you talking about?
Because from where I stand, America has never fully lived up to the civic ideal you describe.
That is precisely why this administration’s repeated embrace of “remigration” sounds so familiar to me.