As a first step, assimilation may mean not being on social media. The awfulness, at least on some platforms. I posted the other day about the rhetoric of "flower power"(for those who remember), which was, at the very least. all about love, not hate. And long hair and no washing. And doves and that peace symbol.
Why not cut to the chase and admit Republican policies are anti-immigrant and anti-assimilation. Only if you're a white Judeo-Christian Afrikaaner, does MAGA want you. Even being a devout Christian does not matter to them; as frequent church-burnings in black communities has proven.
Assimilation primarily happens from spending a childhood in US Public Schools. Which MAGA wants to destroy and replace with religious schools and unregulated home schooling. This can't and won't happen overnight, but the trend has sharply accelerated under Trump2.
I will continue to maintain that multi-generational lack of assimilation is a largely fictional problem. Assimilation is a generational given. A Mexican-born laborer may never seem fully American, but his kids born in the US will. Second-generation immigrants are often invisible to people having this debate because they don’t stand out. They largely do not have accents, nor look or dress distinctively, and are fluent in American culture.
Extremely conservative or traditional religious practices - combined with strict discouragement of outside marriage - can slow things down or stop them. Arguably, the least assimilationist groups in America are the Amish and Hasidic Jews. Neither groups are very recent immigrants in America, so they don’t tend to be part of the immigration-assimilation debate.
I’m skeptical of the argument that sheer numbers creates a significant barrier, given the history of New York City, which has had an extremely and continuously high foreign-born population since the mid-1800s and remains quintessentially American. The reality is most immigrants find it hard to even hold onto their language after a couple of generations.
Someone correct me if I'm confused here, but it seems to me that the heart of assimilation lies in identifying with the core American story.
Losing our roots and finding a new home on this continent has defined us as a people from Plymouth to Ellis Island to Matamoros. America IS a story of immigrants--economically hopeless, politically oppressed, religiously persecuted minorities--leaving their homeland and making a new one in the American landscape.
People become American once they've survived this lost-and-found experience and have identified with the STORY.
Conservatives cling to the epic-heroic version of the national story. For them it's all pilgrims and cowboys--protestants building a city on a hill and pioneers making their way west--both searching for a bit of land to raise a family unmolested by godless big-city hordes.
Progressives push the tragic-anti-heroic version of the narrative. For them it has all been one big story of violence and exploitation, a theft of indigenous land and an assault on the immigrant's distinctive culture.
In short, both political parties have twisted the story to serve their agendas; they use it to define THEMSELVES instead of to build the country. It is the mythic counterpart to the destruction of America's political moderates and centrists.
I don't know about this construct. I don't think people like JD identify with pilgrims, but with the oppressed class of Scots-Irish immigrant settlers of Appalachia and the slavery-supporting elements of the border state populations during the Civil War. There is no depth of self-pitying and self-aggrandizing myth-making that these people have not plumbed. They were victims of the English, victims of the Indians, victims of the coal mines, victims of the Yankees, victims of the Industrial Revolution, and now victims of the Coastal Elites. I would stack up their anti-heroics with anything "progressives" have to offer.
That doesn’t sound like many conservatives I know, Joe, certainly not the evangelicals I know in Florida, or the libertarian Oregon farmers I know, or the Western rancher-types I’ve met at rodeos in Idaho or South Dakota. It’s a broad brush with which you contemptuously paint “these people,” a monolithic “victimization” tale that just doesn’t ring true when you have any face-to-face experience with them.
1) "These people" referred to the JD Vance subset I identified, not Floridians, Oregonians, etc.;
2) My point was that your claim that all "conservatives" believe in an "epic-heroic" version is incorrect, or at least incomplete, and that there is plenty of right-wing victimization mongering.
3) I would say that the entire Southern conservative lost-cause narrative is part of this pattern, and extends well beyond the particular sub-group I identified.
I agree, Joe. I was just adumbrating the issue, sketching in the basic lines, just to make the general point that the parties poison the national stories we desperately need to unite us—and to help new arrivals assimilate in a way that makes them proud to be called Americans.
Point taken. We may slightly disagree (as I know I do with Noah Smith) on the salience of the "stolen land" part of the narrative. I think it's worth remembering and emphasizing, but as a reminder of a deep historical truth and of the progress of liberal institutions, not as a way to chastise Americans for the sins of their fathers or to victim-monger. Same with recognizing that Texas exists because the Austins wanted to extend plantation slavery into Spanish territory...
This one hits close to home, Noah. My parents were Vietnamese refugees and they made sure we learned English before anything else. As a kid I just wanted desperately to fit in, to be American, and they understood that meant meeting the culture halfway. Nobody forced them. They chose it.
I think about how different that experience looks in parts of Europe, where assimilation is either demanded in ways that feel like erasure or rejected entirely, and both paths seem to produce the same resentment.
Conversely, it also begs the question of what the standard for being American even is. When people like Matt Walsh look at Texan names and can’t see American ones, that tells you the framework itself is broken. Who gets to define what American looks like?
I wonder how much of successful assimilation comes down to that choice being available vs. being demanded. Because the moment it becomes a demand instead of an invitation, something breaks.
This doesn't seem like "meeting the culture halfway" at all. What demands did your parents make on the native population on account of respecting Vietnamese culture? My guess is the answer to that would be none at all, which is exactly the number of demands you are allowed to make when you show up in a country you are not from. There are Vietnamese immigrants in my city, and I don't have to worry about it because they do not show up and demand that I adapt to Vietnamese culture. This is why people have no problem with Vietnamese immigration. Muslim immigrants behave very differently.
I had a college roommate who was Muslim American, and other Muslim friends too. And a Muslim American boss at one point. None of them ever demanded anything of us. We lived and worked together fine. I do think there are real tensions worth acknowledging...France and parts of Europe have had genuine friction around integration, headscarves, and free speech regarding religion. Those aren't invented. But generalizing an entire global religion of over a billion people based on the loudest or most visible examples is the same mistake Walsh makes with Hispanic/Texan names. Most people, regardless of background, just want to live their lives.
My generalization is based on the observation that Muslim immigrants seem to cause problems and conflict with the local culture more than any other group. It doesn't matter that the majority of them don't cause problems. It matters that a significantly higher percentage of them cause problems than other immigrant groups. Those particular issues that you mention are caused specifically by Muslims and no other immigrant group. France has large groups of immigrants from Protugal, Italy, and Spain, and there are no such incidents. If there is a way to screen out the problem immigrants on an individual level, such as low volume high skilled immigration, then I have no problem with admitting people from and nationality and religion.
Which Muslim immigratns and what percentage, actuals
And as benchmarked against what? Mexican gangs
This is the kind of thing people asserted about Jews back in the day late 19th through right up to 1940s (as yeah, some small minority of Jews were heavily into radical socialist / left terror, Bolshevism, but wasn't a Jewish thing as Jews in general)
French issues with immigrants are heavily Froggy prejudices.
Yeah, and I guess the grooming gangs can be blamed on English prejudices, and the roaming packs of sexual assaulters can be blamed on German prejudices, and the train bombings can be blamed on Spanish prejudices...
It's the same bullshit that used to be written about Papists and Jews right up to the 1940s with exactly the same level of rigor.
Of course large swaths of Muslim immigrants are very visible - no hijab nor any special dress (e.g. Mamdani) nor looking really any different than an Italian or a Latino. so they pass as if they're not Muslim
Like Jews before them, structurally the same thing
I think this is a genuine difference between Muslim immigrants to the US and to Europe. Some of that has to do with the specific groups of immigrants to each place, and some has to do with the fact that European countries didn’t have a history based on immigration.
I can see the issues in Europe is having with Muslim immigration, it’s just not the same kind of problem in most of the US. Aside from some places like Michigan, there simply isn’t some big critical mass of Muslim immigrants in one place. We’ve got an Islamic Center about a block from here - I assume it doesn’t say mosque so as not to draw attention to itself - but other than one family on my block, and a former employee of mine who lives a few blocks away - it’s not a “Muslim neighborhood.”
Also, all of the Muslims I have encountered in the US are well-educated; we don’t get the waves of refugees that Europe did.
Good point. Being born here meant English was inevitable through the system. But my immigrant parents, who became citizens themselves, actively encouraged us to speak English at home so they could practice with us too. They were learning alongside us. That part was a choice they made, not a requirement. Although I've heard of plenty of stories of immigrants from their generation who never bothered to learn at all, so it definitely wasn't universal.
I mean, this is sort of a straw problem or an online generated problem. The sophisticated and successful parts of this country — CA, MA, NYC, Houston/Austin - seem to bop along fine with large immigrant populations and organic integration around shared things with non-zero but also non-dangerous levels/frequencies of sectarian strife. The groups that have elected to not participate in the broader culture (hello, Satmar!), are mostly allowed to do that and it is mostly not a big deal because it is mostly a not very attractive choice.
A metaphor I always liked is the boat at anchor, where the surface is the broader culture and the anchor is to the specific culture (and the boat is the person). Maybe the first gen has a very short anchor chain, maybe it is moored to the specific culture and barely travels, but as time goes on the anchor chain gets longer and longer and the boat can drift further a field and it is a choice whether or not to keep the anchor at all…
Agree generally, but would argue that it is a political and cultural problem given that we do not have a majoritarian political structure due to the Senate and the Electoral College. CA + NY + MA + TX (which is not even on the table right now) don't come close to providing a majority in the Senate or in the Electoral College, and there is almost no conceivable amount of growth in these states that could overcome the disproportionate voting weight of smaller and more rural states. If the political culture in these states continues to curdle into deep MAGA red, there is no amount of cosmopolitan economic and cultural success in Blue cities and coastal states that will overcome it.
Not sure the Canadian salad bowl should be dismissed so trivially.
While the people are pushing back against high immigration, especially in a "build nothing" housing environment, when I visit it feels like their multi-culturalism works pretty well.
I do see a strong sense of Canadian identity and unity, overlapped with separate cultural identities and behaviors.
Maybe a new metaphor -- salad dressing rather than salad. It has a homogenous base, but still has distinct solids within it. Level of assimilation depends how long and hard you run the blender...
Having pondered this more, I think perhaps the big difference is somehow everyone in the US seems convinced "their" way of life is under attack. It's a weird mass delusion that could be solved just by everyone agreeing that others are free to live their lives. And we have such strong Constitutional support - like right in our founding documents it says you shouldn't worry about living your way freely! Yet here we are...
Have you considered that your upper class experience with your upper class ethnic friends is drastically different from what most americans experience regarding inmigration and the communities they create?
I live in New York City, chock full of working class immigrants for a century. Everyone born in the US becomes assimilated in the same way that Noah’s friends did growing up.
This column had me thinking of my Anabaptist ancestors (the Mennonites and Amish) who came to Lancaster PA in the 1700s fleeing persecution in Europe based on PA governor William Penn's guarantee of religious freedom here. I'm on the "assimilated" branch as most or all of my family had left the Mennonite religion about 80-100 years ago. I live as a modern secular American and speak the assimilated English rather than High German/Penn Dutch. I pay $30K a year for health insurance and struggle like 40% of us to stay on the right side of the obesity line. I'm proud of my kid for getting accepted to one of the "elite" lottery ticket liberal arts colleges but sickened by the $90K/year tuition and I still worry whether that $360K investment will actually ensure their employment after graduation. I spend too much of time doomscrolling about our seemingly collapsing country and dystopian culture. I worry a lot about how my children will find their way in this complex modern interconnected economy.
Meanwhile the unassimilated Amish today have longer lifespans than us, despite not using health insurance. Education is free and after their 13 years they are trilingual (High German, Penn Dutch and English), and have hugely valuable job/homeastead skills with an unemployment rate of effectively zero. They have only a 1/10th of our obesity rate (4%!) despite spending zero on fitness memberships and exercise contraptions. They don't suffer any ill effects of social media, phone and screen addiction, and according to one pretty interesting study they have a happiness level equal to that of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans.
Fortunately they don't believe in holding government positions, lobbying, or judging or restricting the "English" outsiders. Imagine if they acted like other fundamentalist Christians lobbying for state bans on electricity, cars, iphones and shirt buttons?
One of my favorite tenets they have is that not meddling in others business is a core part of their religion. They are not supposed to be too involved with the material world and the non-Amish or any government structures outside their very local church community. They don't believe in using courts and can't profit from a loss or tragedy financially, so don't sue. They really want to be left alone to live their culture and not interact too much with the temptations of the outside world.
You say that "building a shared culture requires changes from everyone," and I agree. But who says I want to build a shared culture? Building a shared culture is a mutual decision, not something you get to just show up somewhere and impose. For most immigrant groups I have no problem with this, but for Muslims in particular I have no interest in building a shared culture. They came here, not the other way around, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to reserve the right to say "my way or the highway".
We have a basically unlimited supply of would be immigrants from groups that don't cause the problems that Muslims do wherever they immigrate to, so I don't really see a strong reason to compromise on this. And I am a moderate on this issue. Public opinion is strongly against Muslim immigration. A significant majority even supported Trumps draconian Muslim ban which goes much further than I would want. Why is it to our advantage to allow this immigration, and why does it seem like the decision to allow it has been made on high without any sort of democratic process? How can you expect people not to feel like it is an invasion when it is happening completely against our will?
Because representatives in a republic are supposed to act fairly and rationally and not single out groups for opprobrium even if the public unfairly and ignorantly would want to?
When you show up in another country and cause problems by not following the rules and demanding other people follow yours, "opprobrium" is the correct response.
I think you are very clearly describing (or illustrating) what Noah correctly identified as a periodic American nativist backlash against a new culture seen as so outside the existing norm that it has to be resisted. It has happened to the Irish and to European Catholics more generally, to Mexicans, to Japanese... Muslims are currently a very small percentage of the US population but have been present in America since the colonial era -- originally because a substantial proportion of West African slaves of that era practiced Islam. There are almost 2B practitioners of Islam in the world today from dozens of different countries and cultures. Trying to exclude or disfavor this population from immigration solely on the ground of religion is impractical, in addition to being un-Constitutional. Nobody (including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus) espousing the violent overthrow of the US Government or the establishment of laws based solely on the doctrines of any particular religion should be allowed to immigrate, because those objectives are antithetical to our Constitutional order. Indeed, I would favor deporting the Christian nationalists in the Republican party who have adopted that as an explicit goal for the same reason.
And there are 6 billion non Muslims, which is around 20x the US population, so yes it would be absolutely practical to exclude them from immigration (and I don't even think we should go as far as total exclusion). It is also perfectly constitutional. You have already conceded that constitutionally protected activity for US citizens is grounds to bar entry:
> Nobody (including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus) espousing the violent overthrow of the US Government or the establishment of laws based solely on the doctrines of any particular religion should be allowed to immigrate
Also, as a descendant of those European Catholic immigrants I can assure you that the backlash was not without good reason.
Those people should be excluded not based on religion, but on views that are not protected by the Constitution: neither violent overthrow of the government nor establishment of a religion is permitted by the Constitution. Screening people for views that are not consistent with the Constitutional order is fundamentally different from excluding people based on religious commitments alone.
Violent overthrow of the government is not protected, obviously, but holding those beliefs and publicly campaigning for them is 100% constitutionally protected activity. Establishment or religion is not even a thing that a non governmental entity is capable of doing, so it has no relevance here, but holding the belief that the US should be a theocracy based on the establishment of your own favored religion, and publicly advocating for that belief, is also 100% constitutionally protected activity. This constitutional protection extends to the same activity for all other beliefs that are "not consistent with the constitutional order."
You are confusing matters of belief with matters of intent and the ability to infer intent in making immigration decisions. It is Constitutionally permissible to exclude aliens who espouse either violent overthrow or who seek to establish a theocracy; it it not permissible to exclude persons based solely on adherence to a particular religious doctrine (Torcaso, Cantwell, Lukumi, Sherbert, as well as the Hernandez, Ghaly, Singh line of cases).
We, in the US are lucky. Most of our immigrants come from European cultures south of the border, or from Asia. Both groups assimilate well. On the other hand Europe's immigrants from the Middle East or Africa. Neither assimilate easuly. In fact some of the ME immigrants are active hostile to the culture, and want to apply Sharia law. Look at what is happening in North England where Pakistani immigrants have formed closed communities, and in the worst case, forming rape gangs.
People might be concerned about Muslim migration because the Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan recently told Christians they were not welcome in the US Muslim city. That he he did so publicly and on video, probably does not bode well, for the Christian and Jewish Michigan populations, nor for the more than 1/2 of the Michiganders that are female or members of the LGBTQ community.
Nor does perpetuation of the "but who will pick the cotton" Dem economic policy, seem to end well for American taxpayers or lowly skilled and sparsely educated immigrants. Only businesses seeking cheap exploitable labor benefit.
US grain farmers have never utilized foreign labor, they do not need it. Modernization and improved tech continually increase the amount of acreage that can be farmed, with fewer bodies.
Fruit and produce growers could utilize the same tech. They do not, because it is cheaper for them to exploit foreign labor with paltry wages, as taxpayers subsidize the workers with ever increasing welfare and healthcare freebies. All with the blessing of Dems, who seem to be devoted to a gentler, kinder, sort of indentured servitude, that is producing the first US caste system.
Assimilation is important, so too is changing Immigration math. Switzerland, the nation with the highest living standards and best health care in the world, has long had a high immigration rates, that were heavy regulated.
The vast majority of Swiss immigrants have long been European. The Swiss deciding that policy benefitted both the Swiss people and new arrivals, who were more likely to successfully assimilate, into a nation similar to their own.
The Swiss now seem likely to curtail even most European immigration, having decided changes in technology and a lack of affordable housing, necessitate they cap their population, to maintain their enviable living standards.
Denmark, another nation with one of the world's highest living standards, greatly curtailed immigration years ago. The far Left Socialist leaders ran the numbers and decided the Danish people lacked the housing and the financial ability to absorb new arrivals en mass , who utilized their generous welfare system at far higher rates than native born Danes.
After Biden, according to the LA Times, 54% of all US naturalized citizens, and immigrants dwelling both legally and illegally in the US utilize at least one US welfare program. Depending on their nation of origin, welfare use is 33%-200% higher than native born Americans. That is not remotely sustainable. Mass migration is different than selective immigration. 2026 economies should not be built on exploitation and formation of a permanent underclass, whose skills and education are unlikely to allow them to flourish in the US.
All immigrants have had resistance in U.S. when they came over first. Seems to be human nature.
Integration requires honoring the rules of law from the host country - wherever you migrate to. That isn’t too much to ask.
UK and some other EU nations have had difficulty assimilating Muslim immigrants. One reason may be the sheer amount that came in over a short period. Another is the Muslim combination of law and religion. When you go to a host Country, you agree to abide by the host Country’s laws. That appears to be the central conflict.
Similarly, our immigration system was broken from 2020-24. Clearly our system takes a long time and that process has to be addressed. But to let in unvetted folks or to have folks overwhelm a system (housing, medical) or to have crime increase as a result - that’s not right either. Too many folks were let in unvetted over a very short period.
And it had the effect of turning the general population against them. Not to mention those who are still on public assistance and are openly mocking our systems with fraud (see Minnesota Somalia debacle).
As to who gets to come in? That is the decision of the host Country. I would hope that people who are ambitious, who have a place to go and who have lined up work would be allowed in. Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. They come at great risk.
THAT’S who we want.
The system worked - our population grew, our entrepreneurs increased and crime over the years did not increase as a result of immigrants (long-standing study showing immigrants have lower crime rate than the general population; that changed in 2020-24 when the vetting process was relaxed - although it’s tough to distinguish between crime increase due to relaxed policies versus new criminal elements, it is true that killings went to decades low number in 2025 with capture and deportation of unvetted criminal elements).
So while you may worry, Noah, the U.S. will be OK. Integration means following the laws of the host Country. Customs are kept (most groups have their own Holidays to celebrate) and as long as our process helps those that are willing to work and contribute to society (can’t come just to go on welfare) we’ll grow. Expect that those that arrive understand they follow the host Country’s laws and regulations. Improve the process and let time take care of the rest.
I was born in Queens/NYC as a first generation American. It was then the most diverse place in the entire world (I think Toronto surpassed it for a bit, not sure about now). Everyone was from everywhere (yes I know the orange guy is also from Queens, but we all have our cross to bear!).
The 'glue', as it were, was "middle class-ness"... in the American (certainly not British) sense of the word. As long as you accepted that contract and a few norms, most integrated just fine. It worked for millions of us, many of whom spoke little or no English when they arrived -- as a kid, I'd routinely find ways to play with other kids who spoke no English. It could be regarded as a very successful experiment: not perfect, but mostly good in terms of outcomes. The Great Society programs also helped level the playing field for the parents of many (not all) Black kids I grew up with, and gave many of them entry into the middle class. Lots of people who were poor (often desperately poor) came here and were much more successful, riding the postwar economic boom.
For my 'cohort' (as it were), assimilation worked pretty well. We went to the same schools and in some cases (I was raised Catholic) the same churches, and often the same colleges then careers. There was lots of integration and inter-marriage, and the children from these unions see themselves as Americans first although they often have a family identity from the old country or group as well.
So like you I think assimilation can be a positive force, without coercion, and I find it off-putting to hear arguments now in favor of what is effectively tribalism. For me at least, that was never the contract that America offered.
Well written, Noah. I agree with you, but there is at least one issue that we need to wrestle with: language. I've always felt that we should establish English as the national language, and that demonstrating a level of proficiency in English should be a requirement of citizenship. I'm persuaded of this simply by practical reasons. not ideology.
English language ability is required for naturalization, and they do test for it. Do you want to extend it to all babies born here also? So you don’t get your birth certificate without first passing a language test? With the advent of accurate translation of any language for free on any smartphone, what is your problem with people who aren’t fluent in English?
The question of English being officially designated the national language has been debated for a long time. It is, indeed, not a big issue in the scheme of things, but here's where I think it's important. At some point we all hope that both parties and a future president will lock themselves in a room and not come out until they agree on a framework for a complete overhaul of our immigration system. That plan will require all sides to compromise. If I were in that room, I'd certainly offer the English requirement as a bargaining point for concessions from the right.
In the meantime, it would do all immigrants a world of good for NPR and other mainstream media to quit producing segments on the plight of illegal immigrants who have clearly been here a long time, but who cannot speak English. They aren't the best candidates to feature in this polarized society.
As for my personal opinion: if an illegal can prove that they've been here for five years, have a steady job, haven't committed a crime, can speak English, and have been paying taxes, then I'd say they are "in."
Many Americans are not aware that at least 7 states were not majority-English at their admission to the union.
National language law makes it easier to ignore linguistic minorities, in a country that has a history of suppressing even linguistic majorities. Recall that majority-French Louisiana banned French in 1916.
Haven’t you argued that we should self-sort into subcultures online? What’s so different about real life? I grew up in Iowa. It was well-assimilated… and soul crushingly bland. I’ve now lived in both coasts and appreciate these immigrant neighborhoods. They add color to life and, as far as I can tell, are not tearing apart the American fabric except inside MAGA minds.
(That said, I don’t think assimilation is something that policy or social forces “decide” to enforce or not. It’s just a thing that happens inevitably with the passing of generations.)
In any case, what even is the mainstream anymore? Coastal (white) urbanites view hinterland (white) MAGAs with contempt and vice versa.
All nations tend to have a unified culture. Empires do not. If you want a fully multicultural America with no assimilation then laws would have to change, since laws are downstream of culture.
Sharia law is used in parts of the UK where Sharia councils can offer religious advisory or arbitration groups. People volunteer to use these courts and agree to the arbitration, so it’s not that onerous.
Nevertheless I don’t see any multi cultural advocate for extending this to criminal courts but shouldn’t they? The laws of the US are rooted in Anglo Saxon legal system and are highly secular, so agreeing to them is assimilation. Other countries do have parallel legal systems for different religious minorities. Indonesia has formalised Islamic family law courts, not just agreed arbitration, for Muslims - civil law for others, and in Aceh criminal law is sharia, including canings.
If non integration means anything, it means having your own courts.
What I had in mind was more prosaic behavioral matters, e.g. culture war complaints that East Asians grind too much in school and thus are insufficiently American. But this is an interesting topic so I’ll give my thoughts.
I see Western law as 90% a technology (in the economists’ sense) and only 10% downstream of culture. British legal systems are functioning fine in India and (Chinese-dominated) Singapore, so that’s at least two major civilizations that make use of it. (India does have religion-specific civil laws for some cultural matters like marriage but criminal law is uniform.) The demand for separate criminal law seems to be specific to Islam, and, well, they’re wrong. This is just a slippery slope argument and I don’t see why a line can’t simply be drawn.
Aside: What’s so bad about empires? Nation-states were a 17th century European solution to a contemporary problem (namely, their propensity for killing each other over trivialities). Now they suffer from continent-wide economic deadweight loss and have spent half a century trying to construct a suprastate.
What bad about empires is the killing was usually caused by the imperialism. Actually modern nation states are from the 19C and generally tied to the rise of democracy.
"Sharia law is used in parts of the UK where Sharia councils can offer religious advisory or arbitration groups"
This reminds me of the story Chris Christie tells about Jared Kushner trying to get Christie fired from the Trump transition team because Christie had prosecuted Kushner's father for federal tax fraud and campaign finance violations when Christie was US Attorney in New Jersey.
Kushner senior's sister (Jared's aunt) had begun cooperating with the US Attorney's office in the prosecution (mainly because Kushner senior had forged her name on documents, exposing her to criminal liability), so Senior decided to seek revenge by setting up a "sting" by hiring a prostitute to seduce his sister's husband, record them having sex, then sending the tape to his sister on the day of her son's engagement party. (Such a nice family!)
In arguing his case to Trump -- in front of Christie in the Oval Office -- Jared said that all of the indictments brought by Chrisite against Kushner senior (all of which senior pled guilty to) should instead "have been handled by the rabbis", outside of any legal proceeding.
As a first step, assimilation may mean not being on social media. The awfulness, at least on some platforms. I posted the other day about the rhetoric of "flower power"(for those who remember), which was, at the very least. all about love, not hate. And long hair and no washing. And doves and that peace symbol.
Why not cut to the chase and admit Republican policies are anti-immigrant and anti-assimilation. Only if you're a white Judeo-Christian Afrikaaner, does MAGA want you. Even being a devout Christian does not matter to them; as frequent church-burnings in black communities has proven.
Assimilation primarily happens from spending a childhood in US Public Schools. Which MAGA wants to destroy and replace with religious schools and unregulated home schooling. This can't and won't happen overnight, but the trend has sharply accelerated under Trump2.
I will continue to maintain that multi-generational lack of assimilation is a largely fictional problem. Assimilation is a generational given. A Mexican-born laborer may never seem fully American, but his kids born in the US will. Second-generation immigrants are often invisible to people having this debate because they don’t stand out. They largely do not have accents, nor look or dress distinctively, and are fluent in American culture.
I generally agree. But I will note that the amount of immigration can slow that assimilation.
Also there is the very big question whether some cultures will assimilate into liberal western values more easily.
The vast majority of American immigration recently has been from Latin America, and that culture seems to assimilate pretty well.
Europe's immigration and assimilation has been less successful. Is that because of Europe, or because of the culture of the immigrants...
Extremely conservative or traditional religious practices - combined with strict discouragement of outside marriage - can slow things down or stop them. Arguably, the least assimilationist groups in America are the Amish and Hasidic Jews. Neither groups are very recent immigrants in America, so they don’t tend to be part of the immigration-assimilation debate.
I’m skeptical of the argument that sheer numbers creates a significant barrier, given the history of New York City, which has had an extremely and continuously high foreign-born population since the mid-1800s and remains quintessentially American. The reality is most immigrants find it hard to even hold onto their language after a couple of generations.
To your last paragraph - ¿Por que no los dos? 🙂
Fair, it's quite possible it's a combination.
Someone correct me if I'm confused here, but it seems to me that the heart of assimilation lies in identifying with the core American story.
Losing our roots and finding a new home on this continent has defined us as a people from Plymouth to Ellis Island to Matamoros. America IS a story of immigrants--economically hopeless, politically oppressed, religiously persecuted minorities--leaving their homeland and making a new one in the American landscape.
People become American once they've survived this lost-and-found experience and have identified with the STORY.
Conservatives cling to the epic-heroic version of the national story. For them it's all pilgrims and cowboys--protestants building a city on a hill and pioneers making their way west--both searching for a bit of land to raise a family unmolested by godless big-city hordes.
Progressives push the tragic-anti-heroic version of the narrative. For them it has all been one big story of violence and exploitation, a theft of indigenous land and an assault on the immigrant's distinctive culture.
In short, both political parties have twisted the story to serve their agendas; they use it to define THEMSELVES instead of to build the country. It is the mythic counterpart to the destruction of America's political moderates and centrists.
I don't know about this construct. I don't think people like JD identify with pilgrims, but with the oppressed class of Scots-Irish immigrant settlers of Appalachia and the slavery-supporting elements of the border state populations during the Civil War. There is no depth of self-pitying and self-aggrandizing myth-making that these people have not plumbed. They were victims of the English, victims of the Indians, victims of the coal mines, victims of the Yankees, victims of the Industrial Revolution, and now victims of the Coastal Elites. I would stack up their anti-heroics with anything "progressives" have to offer.
That doesn’t sound like many conservatives I know, Joe, certainly not the evangelicals I know in Florida, or the libertarian Oregon farmers I know, or the Western rancher-types I’ve met at rodeos in Idaho or South Dakota. It’s a broad brush with which you contemptuously paint “these people,” a monolithic “victimization” tale that just doesn’t ring true when you have any face-to-face experience with them.
1) "These people" referred to the JD Vance subset I identified, not Floridians, Oregonians, etc.;
2) My point was that your claim that all "conservatives" believe in an "epic-heroic" version is incorrect, or at least incomplete, and that there is plenty of right-wing victimization mongering.
3) I would say that the entire Southern conservative lost-cause narrative is part of this pattern, and extends well beyond the particular sub-group I identified.
I agree, Joe. I was just adumbrating the issue, sketching in the basic lines, just to make the general point that the parties poison the national stories we desperately need to unite us—and to help new arrivals assimilate in a way that makes them proud to be called Americans.
Point taken. We may slightly disagree (as I know I do with Noah Smith) on the salience of the "stolen land" part of the narrative. I think it's worth remembering and emphasizing, but as a reminder of a deep historical truth and of the progress of liberal institutions, not as a way to chastise Americans for the sins of their fathers or to victim-monger. Same with recognizing that Texas exists because the Austins wanted to extend plantation slavery into Spanish territory...
This one hits close to home, Noah. My parents were Vietnamese refugees and they made sure we learned English before anything else. As a kid I just wanted desperately to fit in, to be American, and they understood that meant meeting the culture halfway. Nobody forced them. They chose it.
I think about how different that experience looks in parts of Europe, where assimilation is either demanded in ways that feel like erasure or rejected entirely, and both paths seem to produce the same resentment.
Conversely, it also begs the question of what the standard for being American even is. When people like Matt Walsh look at Texan names and can’t see American ones, that tells you the framework itself is broken. Who gets to define what American looks like?
I wonder how much of successful assimilation comes down to that choice being available vs. being demanded. Because the moment it becomes a demand instead of an invitation, something breaks.
This doesn't seem like "meeting the culture halfway" at all. What demands did your parents make on the native population on account of respecting Vietnamese culture? My guess is the answer to that would be none at all, which is exactly the number of demands you are allowed to make when you show up in a country you are not from. There are Vietnamese immigrants in my city, and I don't have to worry about it because they do not show up and demand that I adapt to Vietnamese culture. This is why people have no problem with Vietnamese immigration. Muslim immigrants behave very differently.
I had a college roommate who was Muslim American, and other Muslim friends too. And a Muslim American boss at one point. None of them ever demanded anything of us. We lived and worked together fine. I do think there are real tensions worth acknowledging...France and parts of Europe have had genuine friction around integration, headscarves, and free speech regarding religion. Those aren't invented. But generalizing an entire global religion of over a billion people based on the loudest or most visible examples is the same mistake Walsh makes with Hispanic/Texan names. Most people, regardless of background, just want to live their lives.
My generalization is based on the observation that Muslim immigrants seem to cause problems and conflict with the local culture more than any other group. It doesn't matter that the majority of them don't cause problems. It matters that a significantly higher percentage of them cause problems than other immigrant groups. Those particular issues that you mention are caused specifically by Muslims and no other immigrant group. France has large groups of immigrants from Protugal, Italy, and Spain, and there are no such incidents. If there is a way to screen out the problem immigrants on an individual level, such as low volume high skilled immigration, then I have no problem with admitting people from and nationality and religion.
Your "observation" is bullshit
Which Muslim immigratns and what percentage, actuals
And as benchmarked against what? Mexican gangs
This is the kind of thing people asserted about Jews back in the day late 19th through right up to 1940s (as yeah, some small minority of Jews were heavily into radical socialist / left terror, Bolshevism, but wasn't a Jewish thing as Jews in general)
French issues with immigrants are heavily Froggy prejudices.
Yeah, and I guess the grooming gangs can be blamed on English prejudices, and the roaming packs of sexual assaulters can be blamed on German prejudices, and the train bombings can be blamed on Spanish prejudices...
We can safely blame your bigotry on religion on your prersonal prejudices and cherry picking on anectdodes somewhat pathetic bigotry.
Nothing new here, same kind of cherry picking was done about the southern Italians in US, the Jews very generally.
It's the same bullshit that used to be written about Papists and Jews right up to the 1940s with exactly the same level of rigor.
Of course large swaths of Muslim immigrants are very visible - no hijab nor any special dress (e.g. Mamdani) nor looking really any different than an Italian or a Latino. so they pass as if they're not Muslim
Like Jews before them, structurally the same thing
I think this is a genuine difference between Muslim immigrants to the US and to Europe. Some of that has to do with the specific groups of immigrants to each place, and some has to do with the fact that European countries didn’t have a history based on immigration.
I can see the issues in Europe is having with Muslim immigration, it’s just not the same kind of problem in most of the US. Aside from some places like Michigan, there simply isn’t some big critical mass of Muslim immigrants in one place. We’ve got an Islamic Center about a block from here - I assume it doesn’t say mosque so as not to draw attention to itself - but other than one family on my block, and a former employee of mine who lives a few blocks away - it’s not a “Muslim neighborhood.”
Also, all of the Muslims I have encountered in the US are well-educated; we don’t get the waves of refugees that Europe did.
I think this is still what happens normally. If you were born in the US, there’s no way you would not have learned English.
Good point. Being born here meant English was inevitable through the system. But my immigrant parents, who became citizens themselves, actively encouraged us to speak English at home so they could practice with us too. They were learning alongside us. That part was a choice they made, not a requirement. Although I've heard of plenty of stories of immigrants from their generation who never bothered to learn at all, so it definitely wasn't universal.
I mean, this is sort of a straw problem or an online generated problem. The sophisticated and successful parts of this country — CA, MA, NYC, Houston/Austin - seem to bop along fine with large immigrant populations and organic integration around shared things with non-zero but also non-dangerous levels/frequencies of sectarian strife. The groups that have elected to not participate in the broader culture (hello, Satmar!), are mostly allowed to do that and it is mostly not a big deal because it is mostly a not very attractive choice.
A metaphor I always liked is the boat at anchor, where the surface is the broader culture and the anchor is to the specific culture (and the boat is the person). Maybe the first gen has a very short anchor chain, maybe it is moored to the specific culture and barely travels, but as time goes on the anchor chain gets longer and longer and the boat can drift further a field and it is a choice whether or not to keep the anchor at all…
Agree generally, but would argue that it is a political and cultural problem given that we do not have a majoritarian political structure due to the Senate and the Electoral College. CA + NY + MA + TX (which is not even on the table right now) don't come close to providing a majority in the Senate or in the Electoral College, and there is almost no conceivable amount of growth in these states that could overcome the disproportionate voting weight of smaller and more rural states. If the political culture in these states continues to curdle into deep MAGA red, there is no amount of cosmopolitan economic and cultural success in Blue cities and coastal states that will overcome it.
Sure, I mean a root problem is the capture of the “discourse” by loud angry bullshit. As Jaques Barzun wrote: “Indignation is the cheapest emotion.”
And fully endorse focusing on fixing those structural issues you mention before policy goals.
Not sure the Canadian salad bowl should be dismissed so trivially.
While the people are pushing back against high immigration, especially in a "build nothing" housing environment, when I visit it feels like their multi-culturalism works pretty well.
I do see a strong sense of Canadian identity and unity, overlapped with separate cultural identities and behaviors.
Maybe a new metaphor -- salad dressing rather than salad. It has a homogenous base, but still has distinct solids within it. Level of assimilation depends how long and hard you run the blender...
Having pondered this more, I think perhaps the big difference is somehow everyone in the US seems convinced "their" way of life is under attack. It's a weird mass delusion that could be solved just by everyone agreeing that others are free to live their lives. And we have such strong Constitutional support - like right in our founding documents it says you shouldn't worry about living your way freely! Yet here we are...
Have you considered that your upper class experience with your upper class ethnic friends is drastically different from what most americans experience regarding inmigration and the communities they create?
I've considered it, but the truth is that I didn't grow up upper class, and a lot of the "ethnic" people I knew weren't upper class either.
I live in New York City, chock full of working class immigrants for a century. Everyone born in the US becomes assimilated in the same way that Noah’s friends did growing up.
This column had me thinking of my Anabaptist ancestors (the Mennonites and Amish) who came to Lancaster PA in the 1700s fleeing persecution in Europe based on PA governor William Penn's guarantee of religious freedom here. I'm on the "assimilated" branch as most or all of my family had left the Mennonite religion about 80-100 years ago. I live as a modern secular American and speak the assimilated English rather than High German/Penn Dutch. I pay $30K a year for health insurance and struggle like 40% of us to stay on the right side of the obesity line. I'm proud of my kid for getting accepted to one of the "elite" lottery ticket liberal arts colleges but sickened by the $90K/year tuition and I still worry whether that $360K investment will actually ensure their employment after graduation. I spend too much of time doomscrolling about our seemingly collapsing country and dystopian culture. I worry a lot about how my children will find their way in this complex modern interconnected economy.
Meanwhile the unassimilated Amish today have longer lifespans than us, despite not using health insurance. Education is free and after their 13 years they are trilingual (High German, Penn Dutch and English), and have hugely valuable job/homeastead skills with an unemployment rate of effectively zero. They have only a 1/10th of our obesity rate (4%!) despite spending zero on fitness memberships and exercise contraptions. They don't suffer any ill effects of social media, phone and screen addiction, and according to one pretty interesting study they have a happiness level equal to that of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans.
Who's better off?
The Amish as a group also have the highest fertility rate in America, so in a few centuries they may be the last ones laughing.
Fortunately they don't believe in holding government positions, lobbying, or judging or restricting the "English" outsiders. Imagine if they acted like other fundamentalist Christians lobbying for state bans on electricity, cars, iphones and shirt buttons?
Although that might also be because of their percent of the population.
If a much higher percent of the population was Amish, I predict it would be different.
One of my favorite tenets they have is that not meddling in others business is a core part of their religion. They are not supposed to be too involved with the material world and the non-Amish or any government structures outside their very local church community. They don't believe in using courts and can't profit from a loss or tragedy financially, so don't sue. They really want to be left alone to live their culture and not interact too much with the temptations of the outside world.
You say that "building a shared culture requires changes from everyone," and I agree. But who says I want to build a shared culture? Building a shared culture is a mutual decision, not something you get to just show up somewhere and impose. For most immigrant groups I have no problem with this, but for Muslims in particular I have no interest in building a shared culture. They came here, not the other way around, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to reserve the right to say "my way or the highway".
We have a basically unlimited supply of would be immigrants from groups that don't cause the problems that Muslims do wherever they immigrate to, so I don't really see a strong reason to compromise on this. And I am a moderate on this issue. Public opinion is strongly against Muslim immigration. A significant majority even supported Trumps draconian Muslim ban which goes much further than I would want. Why is it to our advantage to allow this immigration, and why does it seem like the decision to allow it has been made on high without any sort of democratic process? How can you expect people not to feel like it is an invasion when it is happening completely against our will?
Because representatives in a republic are supposed to act fairly and rationally and not single out groups for opprobrium even if the public unfairly and ignorantly would want to?
When you show up in another country and cause problems by not following the rules and demanding other people follow yours, "opprobrium" is the correct response.
It worked for the Irish...
I think you are very clearly describing (or illustrating) what Noah correctly identified as a periodic American nativist backlash against a new culture seen as so outside the existing norm that it has to be resisted. It has happened to the Irish and to European Catholics more generally, to Mexicans, to Japanese... Muslims are currently a very small percentage of the US population but have been present in America since the colonial era -- originally because a substantial proportion of West African slaves of that era practiced Islam. There are almost 2B practitioners of Islam in the world today from dozens of different countries and cultures. Trying to exclude or disfavor this population from immigration solely on the ground of religion is impractical, in addition to being un-Constitutional. Nobody (including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus) espousing the violent overthrow of the US Government or the establishment of laws based solely on the doctrines of any particular religion should be allowed to immigrate, because those objectives are antithetical to our Constitutional order. Indeed, I would favor deporting the Christian nationalists in the Republican party who have adopted that as an explicit goal for the same reason.
And there are 6 billion non Muslims, which is around 20x the US population, so yes it would be absolutely practical to exclude them from immigration (and I don't even think we should go as far as total exclusion). It is also perfectly constitutional. You have already conceded that constitutionally protected activity for US citizens is grounds to bar entry:
> Nobody (including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus) espousing the violent overthrow of the US Government or the establishment of laws based solely on the doctrines of any particular religion should be allowed to immigrate
Also, as a descendant of those European Catholic immigrants I can assure you that the backlash was not without good reason.
Those people should be excluded not based on religion, but on views that are not protected by the Constitution: neither violent overthrow of the government nor establishment of a religion is permitted by the Constitution. Screening people for views that are not consistent with the Constitutional order is fundamentally different from excluding people based on religious commitments alone.
Violent overthrow of the government is not protected, obviously, but holding those beliefs and publicly campaigning for them is 100% constitutionally protected activity. Establishment or religion is not even a thing that a non governmental entity is capable of doing, so it has no relevance here, but holding the belief that the US should be a theocracy based on the establishment of your own favored religion, and publicly advocating for that belief, is also 100% constitutionally protected activity. This constitutional protection extends to the same activity for all other beliefs that are "not consistent with the constitutional order."
You are confusing matters of belief with matters of intent and the ability to infer intent in making immigration decisions. It is Constitutionally permissible to exclude aliens who espouse either violent overthrow or who seek to establish a theocracy; it it not permissible to exclude persons based solely on adherence to a particular religious doctrine (Torcaso, Cantwell, Lukumi, Sherbert, as well as the Hernandez, Ghaly, Singh line of cases).
I guess I do not know what you are talking about? What rules are you talking about?
We, in the US are lucky. Most of our immigrants come from European cultures south of the border, or from Asia. Both groups assimilate well. On the other hand Europe's immigrants from the Middle East or Africa. Neither assimilate easuly. In fact some of the ME immigrants are active hostile to the culture, and want to apply Sharia law. Look at what is happening in North England where Pakistani immigrants have formed closed communities, and in the worst case, forming rape gangs.
People might be concerned about Muslim migration because the Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan recently told Christians they were not welcome in the US Muslim city. That he he did so publicly and on video, probably does not bode well, for the Christian and Jewish Michigan populations, nor for the more than 1/2 of the Michiganders that are female or members of the LGBTQ community.
Nor does perpetuation of the "but who will pick the cotton" Dem economic policy, seem to end well for American taxpayers or lowly skilled and sparsely educated immigrants. Only businesses seeking cheap exploitable labor benefit.
US grain farmers have never utilized foreign labor, they do not need it. Modernization and improved tech continually increase the amount of acreage that can be farmed, with fewer bodies.
Fruit and produce growers could utilize the same tech. They do not, because it is cheaper for them to exploit foreign labor with paltry wages, as taxpayers subsidize the workers with ever increasing welfare and healthcare freebies. All with the blessing of Dems, who seem to be devoted to a gentler, kinder, sort of indentured servitude, that is producing the first US caste system.
Assimilation is important, so too is changing Immigration math. Switzerland, the nation with the highest living standards and best health care in the world, has long had a high immigration rates, that were heavy regulated.
The vast majority of Swiss immigrants have long been European. The Swiss deciding that policy benefitted both the Swiss people and new arrivals, who were more likely to successfully assimilate, into a nation similar to their own.
The Swiss now seem likely to curtail even most European immigration, having decided changes in technology and a lack of affordable housing, necessitate they cap their population, to maintain their enviable living standards.
Denmark, another nation with one of the world's highest living standards, greatly curtailed immigration years ago. The far Left Socialist leaders ran the numbers and decided the Danish people lacked the housing and the financial ability to absorb new arrivals en mass , who utilized their generous welfare system at far higher rates than native born Danes.
After Biden, according to the LA Times, 54% of all US naturalized citizens, and immigrants dwelling both legally and illegally in the US utilize at least one US welfare program. Depending on their nation of origin, welfare use is 33%-200% higher than native born Americans. That is not remotely sustainable. Mass migration is different than selective immigration. 2026 economies should not be built on exploitation and formation of a permanent underclass, whose skills and education are unlikely to allow them to flourish in the US.
Noah,
All I can say is “well put”. For the most part, I always find your posts (opinions) to be thought provoking.
All immigrants have had resistance in U.S. when they came over first. Seems to be human nature.
Integration requires honoring the rules of law from the host country - wherever you migrate to. That isn’t too much to ask.
UK and some other EU nations have had difficulty assimilating Muslim immigrants. One reason may be the sheer amount that came in over a short period. Another is the Muslim combination of law and religion. When you go to a host Country, you agree to abide by the host Country’s laws. That appears to be the central conflict.
Similarly, our immigration system was broken from 2020-24. Clearly our system takes a long time and that process has to be addressed. But to let in unvetted folks or to have folks overwhelm a system (housing, medical) or to have crime increase as a result - that’s not right either. Too many folks were let in unvetted over a very short period.
And it had the effect of turning the general population against them. Not to mention those who are still on public assistance and are openly mocking our systems with fraud (see Minnesota Somalia debacle).
As to who gets to come in? That is the decision of the host Country. I would hope that people who are ambitious, who have a place to go and who have lined up work would be allowed in. Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. They come at great risk.
THAT’S who we want.
The system worked - our population grew, our entrepreneurs increased and crime over the years did not increase as a result of immigrants (long-standing study showing immigrants have lower crime rate than the general population; that changed in 2020-24 when the vetting process was relaxed - although it’s tough to distinguish between crime increase due to relaxed policies versus new criminal elements, it is true that killings went to decades low number in 2025 with capture and deportation of unvetted criminal elements).
So while you may worry, Noah, the U.S. will be OK. Integration means following the laws of the host Country. Customs are kept (most groups have their own Holidays to celebrate) and as long as our process helps those that are willing to work and contribute to society (can’t come just to go on welfare) we’ll grow. Expect that those that arrive understand they follow the host Country’s laws and regulations. Improve the process and let time take care of the rest.
Good essay, I agree with you.
I was born in Queens/NYC as a first generation American. It was then the most diverse place in the entire world (I think Toronto surpassed it for a bit, not sure about now). Everyone was from everywhere (yes I know the orange guy is also from Queens, but we all have our cross to bear!).
The 'glue', as it were, was "middle class-ness"... in the American (certainly not British) sense of the word. As long as you accepted that contract and a few norms, most integrated just fine. It worked for millions of us, many of whom spoke little or no English when they arrived -- as a kid, I'd routinely find ways to play with other kids who spoke no English. It could be regarded as a very successful experiment: not perfect, but mostly good in terms of outcomes. The Great Society programs also helped level the playing field for the parents of many (not all) Black kids I grew up with, and gave many of them entry into the middle class. Lots of people who were poor (often desperately poor) came here and were much more successful, riding the postwar economic boom.
For my 'cohort' (as it were), assimilation worked pretty well. We went to the same schools and in some cases (I was raised Catholic) the same churches, and often the same colleges then careers. There was lots of integration and inter-marriage, and the children from these unions see themselves as Americans first although they often have a family identity from the old country or group as well.
So like you I think assimilation can be a positive force, without coercion, and I find it off-putting to hear arguments now in favor of what is effectively tribalism. For me at least, that was never the contract that America offered.
Well written, Noah. I agree with you, but there is at least one issue that we need to wrestle with: language. I've always felt that we should establish English as the national language, and that demonstrating a level of proficiency in English should be a requirement of citizenship. I'm persuaded of this simply by practical reasons. not ideology.
English language ability is required for naturalization, and they do test for it. Do you want to extend it to all babies born here also? So you don’t get your birth certificate without first passing a language test? With the advent of accurate translation of any language for free on any smartphone, what is your problem with people who aren’t fluent in English?
The question of English being officially designated the national language has been debated for a long time. It is, indeed, not a big issue in the scheme of things, but here's where I think it's important. At some point we all hope that both parties and a future president will lock themselves in a room and not come out until they agree on a framework for a complete overhaul of our immigration system. That plan will require all sides to compromise. If I were in that room, I'd certainly offer the English requirement as a bargaining point for concessions from the right.
In the meantime, it would do all immigrants a world of good for NPR and other mainstream media to quit producing segments on the plight of illegal immigrants who have clearly been here a long time, but who cannot speak English. They aren't the best candidates to feature in this polarized society.
As for my personal opinion: if an illegal can prove that they've been here for five years, have a steady job, haven't committed a crime, can speak English, and have been paying taxes, then I'd say they are "in."
Many Americans are not aware that at least 7 states were not majority-English at their admission to the union.
National language law makes it easier to ignore linguistic minorities, in a country that has a history of suppressing even linguistic majorities. Recall that majority-French Louisiana banned French in 1916.
What would this change, it’s barely an issue as is.
Haven’t you argued that we should self-sort into subcultures online? What’s so different about real life? I grew up in Iowa. It was well-assimilated… and soul crushingly bland. I’ve now lived in both coasts and appreciate these immigrant neighborhoods. They add color to life and, as far as I can tell, are not tearing apart the American fabric except inside MAGA minds.
(That said, I don’t think assimilation is something that policy or social forces “decide” to enforce or not. It’s just a thing that happens inevitably with the passing of generations.)
In any case, what even is the mainstream anymore? Coastal (white) urbanites view hinterland (white) MAGAs with contempt and vice versa.
Fragmented online > unified online
Offline > online
All nations tend to have a unified culture. Empires do not. If you want a fully multicultural America with no assimilation then laws would have to change, since laws are downstream of culture.
Sharia law is used in parts of the UK where Sharia councils can offer religious advisory or arbitration groups. People volunteer to use these courts and agree to the arbitration, so it’s not that onerous.
Nevertheless I don’t see any multi cultural advocate for extending this to criminal courts but shouldn’t they? The laws of the US are rooted in Anglo Saxon legal system and are highly secular, so agreeing to them is assimilation. Other countries do have parallel legal systems for different religious minorities. Indonesia has formalised Islamic family law courts, not just agreed arbitration, for Muslims - civil law for others, and in Aceh criminal law is sharia, including canings.
If non integration means anything, it means having your own courts.
What I had in mind was more prosaic behavioral matters, e.g. culture war complaints that East Asians grind too much in school and thus are insufficiently American. But this is an interesting topic so I’ll give my thoughts.
I see Western law as 90% a technology (in the economists’ sense) and only 10% downstream of culture. British legal systems are functioning fine in India and (Chinese-dominated) Singapore, so that’s at least two major civilizations that make use of it. (India does have religion-specific civil laws for some cultural matters like marriage but criminal law is uniform.) The demand for separate criminal law seems to be specific to Islam, and, well, they’re wrong. This is just a slippery slope argument and I don’t see why a line can’t simply be drawn.
Aside: What’s so bad about empires? Nation-states were a 17th century European solution to a contemporary problem (namely, their propensity for killing each other over trivialities). Now they suffer from continent-wide economic deadweight loss and have spent half a century trying to construct a suprastate.
What bad about empires is the killing was usually caused by the imperialism. Actually modern nation states are from the 19C and generally tied to the rise of democracy.
Yes, multi-ethnic states took a beating starting in the mid-19C, but many got their mojo back if they became democratic and survived past WWII.
"Sharia law is used in parts of the UK where Sharia councils can offer religious advisory or arbitration groups"
This reminds me of the story Chris Christie tells about Jared Kushner trying to get Christie fired from the Trump transition team because Christie had prosecuted Kushner's father for federal tax fraud and campaign finance violations when Christie was US Attorney in New Jersey.
Kushner senior's sister (Jared's aunt) had begun cooperating with the US Attorney's office in the prosecution (mainly because Kushner senior had forged her name on documents, exposing her to criminal liability), so Senior decided to seek revenge by setting up a "sting" by hiring a prostitute to seduce his sister's husband, record them having sex, then sending the tape to his sister on the day of her son's engagement party. (Such a nice family!)
In arguing his case to Trump -- in front of Christie in the Oval Office -- Jared said that all of the indictments brought by Chrisite against Kushner senior (all of which senior pled guilty to) should instead "have been handled by the rabbis", outside of any legal proceeding.
My point is...deport Jared Kushner.
Catholics also have their own courts such as marriage tribunals for annulment. Catholics who have been assimilated for 100s of years use them.
The annulments are the only ones I’m aware of still in use, and I was raised Catholic (I’m 45)