Two recent controversies on the political Right have forced an uncomfortable question: What does it actually mean to be an American?
In Texas, Republican railroad commission candidate Bo French sparked a national controversy after posting a photograph of South Asian students celebrating a University of Texas football victory and suggesting their presence represented Americans being displaced by foreigners. The backlash came from both Democrats and Republicans. The facts also undercut the picture he was trying to paint: more than 80% of UT Austin students are Texas residents, while international students make up just 4.3% of undergraduates.
Then came Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar’s (R-FL) warning to President Donald Trump that some of his immigration enforcement efforts had “gone too far.” Salazar wasn’t calling for open borders. She argued that the administration’s aggressive enforcement was alienating Hispanic voters, pointing specifically to the number of people detained who had no criminal record.
On the surface, these are different controversies. Underneath, they raise the same question: Is American identity ultimately about ancestry, or about becoming part of America? Conservatives should have a clear answer.
I believe in secure borders. I believe immigration laws should be enforced. I believe immigrants should assimilate. But assimilation does not mean becoming somebody else’s version of an American.
It means becoming a productive member of the American civic community. Learn the language well enough to participate. Follow the law. Work. Raise your children. Contribute to your community. Understand the country’s history. Respect the Constitution and the institutions that hold the country together.
That’s assimilation. Abandoning your ancestry isn’t. Neither is giving up your religion, food, music, traditions, or cultural heritage. And certainly not looking a certain way.
America should expect immigrants to become Americans, not to become white Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans or somebody else’s imagined version of the “real” American. That’s where the phrase “heritage American” deserves scrutiny.
There is nothing wrong with taking pride in America’s history or calling yourself a patriot. Conservatives should care about preserving traditions, teaching history, and passing institutions from one generation to the next. But a “heritage American” should not become a category of American who is considered more authentically American because his ancestors arrived earlier.
The problem with the “heritage American” framework is that it can turn ancestry into a test of belonging. Once political language starts defining Americans by ancestry and treating demographic change as a threat to the people who supposedly belong here, it enters darker territory.
Someone can say he isn’t motivated by race. He’s just “protecting his heritage.” He’s not excluding anyone, he’s just “preserving his culture.” He’s not suspicious of people because of their ethnicity, he’s just worried about “demographic change.” But language matters.
“Heritage” can become a respectable way to talk about who belongs without openly talking about race. And when fear of demographic displacement becomes the emotional foundation of an immigration argument, conservatives should be willing to recognize where that road can lead. That should concern conservatives.
For years, the Right has criticized the Left for reducing Americans to racial categories and making ancestry politically significant. That criticism was justified. But conservatives cannot defeat identity politics by creating a competing version of it. Identity politics does not become conservative simply because the identity being elevated is called “heritage.”
A country has every right to control its borders. It has the right to decide who enters, enforce its immigration laws, and expect newcomers to respect its civic institutions. But there is a profound difference between saying, “You need to follow the law and become a productive member of this society,” and saying, “You need the right ancestry to truly belong here.”
The first is assimilation. The second is ancestry politics. And once ancestry becomes the measure of belonging, racial thinking has already entered through the back door. This is where conservatives need to look in the mirror.
I have always tried to take a clear moral position in my writing, even when it puts me at odds with people on my own side. I am a conservative because I believe in certain principles, not simply because I belong to a political party. And I have to admit something: I don’t like the direction parts of the Republican Party are moving.
I can disagree with Democrats on immigration, crime, government spending, family policy, and the role of government while still believing that racial fear and ancestry should have no place in defining who belongs in America. Those positions are not contradictory. But we should ask ourselves a harder question: How did we get so far from our own principles that some on our side are beginning to treat ancestry as a measure of American belonging?
We should be able to defend the border without fearing our neighbors. We should be able to demand assimilation without demanding cultural conformity. We should be able to love America’s history without turning ancestry into a qualification for belonging.
That’s not a retreat from conservatism. It is a reminder of what conservatism is supposed to conserve. America does not need a racial definition of citizenship. It needs a civic one.
HOW EUROPE DESTROYED ITSELF WITH OPEN BORDERS — AND WHY AMERICA AND POLAND GOT IT RIGHT
Conservatives should not need the idea of a “heritage American” to defend American identity. We can secure the border without creating a bloodline. We can demand assimilation without demanding cultural conformity. We can preserve American traditions without deciding that some Americans are more American than others.
Conservatives should not need racial identity to defend American identity. America is already worth defending.
David Sypher Jr. is a writer from New Jersey.