I always found the Theodore Roosevelt view of immigration clarifying, in that it frames it as a bargain between both the immigrant and those already there where both have obligations to uphold to make the system work:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to separate from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all."
If and where possible, we should try to limit the # of people coming to America who are less likely to assimilate to our core values of liberty and equality, and work very hard once immigrants are here to assimilate them to those.
But what do we do for existing citizens, whether they are born here or not, who explicitly reject those values or are politically and socially aligned with those who do? Some of these people are arguably part of a hate movement, calling for destruction of America or the blatant discrimination of groups of people they deem "oppressors." Do we have any options to express our intolerance of their illiberal and immoral intolerance? Can and must we treat their stated views and actions and uncritical associations as taboos that are socially unacceptable in polite society and our mainstream politics? If we don't draw that line, what will stop those hateful views from normalizing and destroying our and all liberal democracies?
I'll put a finer point on it: what are the self-limiting principles of "free speech culture?"
Free speech works both ways. People who say they hate America and everything it stands for can expect to get very robust criticism, which will include some very painful home truths. If they take offense, then too bad. The founders thought free speech was essential to keeping a free society so some ruffled feathers and hurt feelings were a small price to pay.
I agree. But what happens when that "counter-speech" becomes a coordinated effort to get a mass of people to disassociate from the original speaker who says they unequivocally hate America and its values? Where's the line between appropriate social consequences and "cancel culture"? When Macklemore chanted "F*** America" at a concert and the Mariners dropped his song after, was that "cancel culture"? Some would say yes, or simply define "cancel culture" so broadly that there's no principled way to discern any differences.
Very interesting, thought-provoking piece. I agree. Education is essential to national security and securing our liberty.
Speaking of the danger posed by people who don't understand (or who actively undermine) the foundation of this nation (and speaking of exposing them with their own speech) calls to mind the dangerous, subversive falsehoods asserted or planned by our current president and vice president.
As recently as December 2025, as the sitting vice president, Vance knowingly misrepresented that “The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God, we always will be, a Christian nation.” Shortly thereafter, Trump joined Netanyahu to start something that looks suspiciously similar to a mere religious war.
More recently Trump revealed his plans to erect a victory arch (to celebrate the apparent loss of his religious war) that falsely proclaims that we are (in some unspecified manner) "One Nation Under God."
Clearly, the current president and the current vice president have no real respect for our Constitution or their own oaths of office. With Trump's oath he publicly acknowledged (as the People commanded in Article II) that ALL "executive Power" must be exercised for one purpose alone, i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With Vance's oath he publicly acknowledged (as our representatives in Congress commanded in 5 U.S.C. Section 3331) that he must be faithful to our Constitution, alone. All official powers of any "individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services" must be devoted to "faithfully [to our Constitution] discharg[ing all his] duties," i.e., devoted to fulfilling his promise to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
One of the most famous, celebrated and long-standing principles (commandments) expressed in our Constitution is that our public servants in our national government must refrain from taking any action "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That language was included in the First Amendment very promptly after the People in the original Constitution (Article VI) emphatically commanded that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Your piece also reminds me of Lincoln's observations on April 18, 1864 (exactly a year before he was assassinated by a man who believed in the supposed right of one group of people to viciously and brutally oppress other group of people):
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
You could also ask "Is the death of native-born Hindu India a bad thing?" and the answer would be yes, it would be a bad thing. If you changed the demographic significantly in India, you would be unlikely to hang onto whatever binds it together and keeps it coherent. The same is true of virtually any successful country. If you moved 25% of Germans into France and 25% of French people into Germany, even if they all spoke their new language perfectly, both countries would become a mess because they have such different ways of thinking & feeling, and would struggle to find community spirit and consensus. Nietzsche said that Germans like justice and order but prefer order if they can't have both. If they could, the Germans would arrange to be born in alphabetical order at exactly 10 minute intervals - that is definitely not a Gallic preference! If such similar countries are like oil and water, we should be extremely cautious about the kind of massive social engineering that is happening today.
You clearly haven't read enough White supremacist thought. I spent some time in my younger years lurking on Stormfront so I can elaborate.
Yes, White supremacists believe Whites are superior because of certain civilizational achievements and behavioral norms *but* they think this has a genetic origin. Some even add a religious element, like claiming only Whites were created by God (others believe non Whites were also made by God but Whites are God's "chosen people").
Thus adding non Whites to a White nation is always bad because it will inevitably result in interbreeding between Whites and non Whites, destroying the superior White gene pool.
There are also concerns about reducing White beauty - if too many Whites interbreed with non Whites super light skin, blonde hair and blue eye genes could be eliminated. And mongrel kids will probably be shorter and darker skinned (ie smaller and uglier) than Whites too.
As for Native Americans opinions differ. Some White supremacists kinda romanticize them and would probably keep the reservation system intact while removing welfare for them. Others fantasize about shipping them back to Siberia. The fact that Russia probably wouldn't want them is of no concern to them.
"And I believe we have opened the door too wide, and have begun to lose our sense of self. As a result, we are now solemnly informed that the values we once regarded as universal are merely Western, or white, or in a more fevered telling, expressions of white supremacy, and that the scientific method, Enlightenment values, the legacy of Renaissance art, and other triumphs of European culture, as well as liberal norms of Western democracy, are now to be set beside other ways of knowing, as though evidence and superstition were cousins. "
I'm not sure that the "As a result" is accurate here. I believe that polling shows recent immigrants are more likely to embrace the traditional American values of free speech, law and order and especially capitalism and the rejection of Western values is more evident in people who were born here.
Great piece. It lays out clearly the case for and dilemma of mass immigration in an open society. People should read De Tocqueville he is still so relevant, even prescient. I was going to say reread, but probably most of our commentariat has never read him in the first place. Anyway, your article in forthright and simple prose makes the case and explains the dilemma beautifully. As we say in Hebrew, kol hakavod. (All honor).
I always found the Theodore Roosevelt view of immigration clarifying, in that it frames it as a bargain between both the immigrant and those already there where both have obligations to uphold to make the system work:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to separate from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all."
If and where possible, we should try to limit the # of people coming to America who are less likely to assimilate to our core values of liberty and equality, and work very hard once immigrants are here to assimilate them to those.
But what do we do for existing citizens, whether they are born here or not, who explicitly reject those values or are politically and socially aligned with those who do? Some of these people are arguably part of a hate movement, calling for destruction of America or the blatant discrimination of groups of people they deem "oppressors." Do we have any options to express our intolerance of their illiberal and immoral intolerance? Can and must we treat their stated views and actions and uncritical associations as taboos that are socially unacceptable in polite society and our mainstream politics? If we don't draw that line, what will stop those hateful views from normalizing and destroying our and all liberal democracies?
I'll put a finer point on it: what are the self-limiting principles of "free speech culture?"
Free speech works both ways. People who say they hate America and everything it stands for can expect to get very robust criticism, which will include some very painful home truths. If they take offense, then too bad. The founders thought free speech was essential to keeping a free society so some ruffled feathers and hurt feelings were a small price to pay.
I agree. But what happens when that "counter-speech" becomes a coordinated effort to get a mass of people to disassociate from the original speaker who says they unequivocally hate America and its values? Where's the line between appropriate social consequences and "cancel culture"? When Macklemore chanted "F*** America" at a concert and the Mariners dropped his song after, was that "cancel culture"? Some would say yes, or simply define "cancel culture" so broadly that there's no principled way to discern any differences.
Very interesting, thought-provoking piece. I agree. Education is essential to national security and securing our liberty.
Speaking of the danger posed by people who don't understand (or who actively undermine) the foundation of this nation (and speaking of exposing them with their own speech) calls to mind the dangerous, subversive falsehoods asserted or planned by our current president and vice president.
As recently as December 2025, as the sitting vice president, Vance knowingly misrepresented that “The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God, we always will be, a Christian nation.” Shortly thereafter, Trump joined Netanyahu to start something that looks suspiciously similar to a mere religious war.
More recently Trump revealed his plans to erect a victory arch (to celebrate the apparent loss of his religious war) that falsely proclaims that we are (in some unspecified manner) "One Nation Under God."
Clearly, the current president and the current vice president have no real respect for our Constitution or their own oaths of office. With Trump's oath he publicly acknowledged (as the People commanded in Article II) that ALL "executive Power" must be exercised for one purpose alone, i.e., to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With Vance's oath he publicly acknowledged (as our representatives in Congress commanded in 5 U.S.C. Section 3331) that he must be faithful to our Constitution, alone. All official powers of any "individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services" must be devoted to "faithfully [to our Constitution] discharg[ing all his] duties," i.e., devoted to fulfilling his promise to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
One of the most famous, celebrated and long-standing principles (commandments) expressed in our Constitution is that our public servants in our national government must refrain from taking any action "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That language was included in the First Amendment very promptly after the People in the original Constitution (Article VI) emphatically commanded that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Your piece also reminds me of Lincoln's observations on April 18, 1864 (exactly a year before he was assassinated by a man who believed in the supposed right of one group of people to viciously and brutally oppress other group of people):
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
You could also ask "Is the death of native-born Hindu India a bad thing?" and the answer would be yes, it would be a bad thing. If you changed the demographic significantly in India, you would be unlikely to hang onto whatever binds it together and keeps it coherent. The same is true of virtually any successful country. If you moved 25% of Germans into France and 25% of French people into Germany, even if they all spoke their new language perfectly, both countries would become a mess because they have such different ways of thinking & feeling, and would struggle to find community spirit and consensus. Nietzsche said that Germans like justice and order but prefer order if they can't have both. If they could, the Germans would arrange to be born in alphabetical order at exactly 10 minute intervals - that is definitely not a Gallic preference! If such similar countries are like oil and water, we should be extremely cautious about the kind of massive social engineering that is happening today.
I don't necessarily disagree, which is why I advocate for assimilation to bare-minimum values and against mass migration.
Train Dreams is great but the book is better!
You clearly haven't read enough White supremacist thought. I spent some time in my younger years lurking on Stormfront so I can elaborate.
Yes, White supremacists believe Whites are superior because of certain civilizational achievements and behavioral norms *but* they think this has a genetic origin. Some even add a religious element, like claiming only Whites were created by God (others believe non Whites were also made by God but Whites are God's "chosen people").
Thus adding non Whites to a White nation is always bad because it will inevitably result in interbreeding between Whites and non Whites, destroying the superior White gene pool.
There are also concerns about reducing White beauty - if too many Whites interbreed with non Whites super light skin, blonde hair and blue eye genes could be eliminated. And mongrel kids will probably be shorter and darker skinned (ie smaller and uglier) than Whites too.
As for Native Americans opinions differ. Some White supremacists kinda romanticize them and would probably keep the reservation system intact while removing welfare for them. Others fantasize about shipping them back to Siberia. The fact that Russia probably wouldn't want them is of no concern to them.
"And I believe we have opened the door too wide, and have begun to lose our sense of self. As a result, we are now solemnly informed that the values we once regarded as universal are merely Western, or white, or in a more fevered telling, expressions of white supremacy, and that the scientific method, Enlightenment values, the legacy of Renaissance art, and other triumphs of European culture, as well as liberal norms of Western democracy, are now to be set beside other ways of knowing, as though evidence and superstition were cousins. "
I'm not sure that the "As a result" is accurate here. I believe that polling shows recent immigrants are more likely to embrace the traditional American values of free speech, law and order and especially capitalism and the rejection of Western values is more evident in people who were born here.
Great piece. It lays out clearly the case for and dilemma of mass immigration in an open society. People should read De Tocqueville he is still so relevant, even prescient. I was going to say reread, but probably most of our commentariat has never read him in the first place. Anyway, your article in forthright and simple prose makes the case and explains the dilemma beautifully. As we say in Hebrew, kol hakavod. (All honor).
Very well said. Thank you.