pull down to refresh
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?
You lost me here:
“participating in civic institutions” and “viewing yourself as American first.”
Those aren’t measurable standards. How would you determine whether someone meets them? And how would a government enforce them without making subjective judgments?
“What evidence would convince you that the primary objective is border enforcement…”
The administration would need to stop repeatedly pairing immigration policy with rhetoric about demographic change, “remigration,” immigrants “poisoning the blood,” and selectively restricting or favoring groups in ways that go beyond ordinary border enforcement.
Taken together, its rhetoric, policies, and actions point to something broader than simply securing the border or creating a more selective legal immigration system.
You're confident that the administration's rhetoric and policies support one dominant inference about its motives. I'm saying they support multiple plausible inferences, and you've consistently treated yours as the only reasonable one.
So what objective principle are you using to conclude that your inference is stronger than competing explanations, rather than simply the one you find most persuasive?
I don't think we've disagreed much about the facts. We've disagreed about how much certainty those facts justify.
The objective principle is inference to the best explanation.
I do not ask, “Can I imagine another explanation?”
I ask, “Which explanation accounts for the greatest number of independent facts with the fewest assumptions?”
Your explanation requires treating each piece of evidence in isolation:
- Trump adopts the term remigration.
- Stephen Miller adopts it.
- The State Department adopts it.
- DHS adopts it.
- Trump says immigrants are “poisoning the blood.”
- The administration sharply reduces both legal and illegal immigration.
- Influential MAGA figures attack their own DHS secretary for merely acknowledging that legal immigration can benefit the economy and insist on “deportations first.”
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court used the same kind of reasoning about the Roberts Court.
It did not rest on one case or one quote. It pointed to a pattern across voting rights, racial equality, campaign finance, presidential immunity, abortion, guns, and administrative law.
And on race, it was explicit:
“The Roberts Court sees only white.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment is not colorblind. It never was.”
“That is not blindness. That is white sight, by design.”
Then it summed up the broader pattern:
“Rulings run in one direction, time after time. Weakening protections for those with less power. Fortifying those with more. The pattern speaks for itself.”
That is the point.
Any single fact may admit multiple explanations.
But when independent facts repeatedly align in the same direction, the burden shifts to the person insisting they are all unrelated.
At some point, the question stops being, “Could there be another explanation?”
It becomes, “How many exceptions do I have to invent before the obvious explanation is the better one?”
If your life depended on it, would you trust the explanation that requires the fewest exceptions, or the one that requires a new exception every time another fact appears?
Lol, I'm done with arguing against your AI. You keep posting multiple giant dialogs and paragraphs (bullets, bolding, etc) before I can even read your posts. AI...no one says Hawaii like "The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court"
Your use of AI is why this discussion has shifted so dramatically from immigration policy to "remigration" of anyone that isn't white.
Your AI failed you today...DONE.
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.
We’d need to parse that out.
A preference for a common language is one thing. Turning that preference into an immigration standard is another.
Neither the Constitution nor the founding documents define “assimilation” the way you’re using it, so I’m asking what objective standard you have in mind. Without one, the concept becomes whatever those in power decide it means.
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?
See got you again shifting the discussion..."What does assimilation mean?" to "Define assimilation in a way that is objective enough for the government to enforce?". Two different questions...are you suggesting the government should administer a "cultural purity test?" I said described assimilation as a social expectation or civic process, not a legal checklist. It sounds like you want an objective pass/fail test.
Another example of you shifting the discussion away from the original post.
In the American constitutional tradition, assimilation means legal naturalization, civic participation, and obeying the law, nothing in the Constitution requires cultural conformity, ethnic identity, or ideological uniformity.
That is a universal civic ideal, not a definition of cultural homogeneity or assimilation.
That's where you're wrong. It's not universal at all. The loyalists didn't hold these ideals. They valued peace, order, and civic duty above their own lives, freedom, and happiness, and that's the signifier that someone is unassimilated.
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.