Unhyphenated Americans And National Identity

How do Americans actually see themselves?

Vice President JD Vance wants new Americans to see the U.S. as their one and only country. On X, he recalled an angry “Ukrainian-American” confronting him about how he was “trying to abandon my country.” The country here is Ukraine, not America. Vance related this story to share his thoughts on assimilation:

I always found it offensive that a new immigrant to our country would be willing to use the power and influence of their new nation to settle the ethnic rivalries of the old.

One of the most important parts of assimilation is seeing *your* country as the USA. It's part of the bargain: if you're welcomed into our national family, you ought to look out for the interests of the United States. I know many immigrants who have the right perspective, and I'm grateful to them. For example, I met many Ukrainian Americans during that campaign (and since) who agreed with my views, or at the very least, asked the right question: what is in the best interests of the United States?

The post was loved by right-wing Twitter. Several prominent personalities, including Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt and podcaster Saager Enjeti, approvingly shared it with quotes from Teddy Roosevelt about “unhyphenated Americans.” The 26th president had this to say on the matter:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

Few readers would disagree with the sentiments expressed by Vance and Roosevelt. It is a little funny that Republicans are railing at dual loyalties over Ukraine when this doesn’t appear to be an issue with Israel. No elected Republican will read TR to a Jewish-American who complains about politicians abandoning his country.

That aside, there is an interesting discussion here on what it means to be an American. For Vance, it means you accept America as your country, none other. The same would go for TR’s view, even though he wanted the newcomers to assimilate to Anglo-Saxondom. Modern Republicans would probably not say that. What’s being assimilated to is a bit murkier now, which raises questions about what it means to be an American in 2025. Our national identity faces an uncertain future with mass migration and tremendous cultural change. It’s unlikely Teddy Roosevelt would recognize the America of today as his own.

So what does it mean to be an unhyphenated American in a multicultural state? Recent discussions offer us a few possibilities.

One is that it means to be a “heritage American.” This online term was the subject of a viral X post last week. Annoying user I/O asked: “This ‘heritage Americans’ term that rightoids use, does it also refer to blacks and Amerindians who have lived in America for centuries, or does it only refer to white people?” Some said it only refers to whites, others said it refers to whites and blacks. Few said it included “Amerindians,” which makes sense they were not part of the body politic until the 20th century.

What the term primarily means is whites with long-time ancestry in the U.S. It defines the predominantly Anglo-derived core population. It gives this group, which often thinks of themselves as plain Americans, a title to differentiate them from other, late-arriving residents with citizenship papers.

It’s a term Roosevelt and his generation would’ve understood. This is the group he would’ve wanted immigrants to assimilate to. They would no longer be Irish, Poles, or Swiss. They would all be Americans in an Anglo-Saxon melting pot. This was easier in Roosevelt’s day to imagine when nearly all the immigrants were European and they arrived in a country where “heritage Americans” proudly defined themselves as Anglo-Saxon. It’s harder to conjure that up for our world.

Heritage Americans no longer define themselves as Anglo-Saxon. They just see themselves as Americans, and that usually doesn’t have an ethnic connotation. The new immigrants are rarely European. It’s difficult to see Pakistanis and Guatemalans assimilating to Anglo-Saxondom.

This is most likely not what regular Americans mean by unhyphenated Americans. It’s more a term for those who wish the core population would see themselves as an ethnic group rather than as deracinated individuals. Alas, there hasn’t been much progress on that front.

Vivek Ramaswamy, unfortunately, articulated what more citizens think would count as an unhyphenated American: it’s merely someone who embraces our ideals and pledges allegiance to the flag. In a speech delivered last fall, the now-Ohio gubernatorial candidate contrasted two different kinds of national identity. One is centered on heritage, blood, and soil. Another focuses on ideals, allegiance, and duty. He believes other nations are founded on the former while America is based on the latter. The conservative crowd applauded his remarks.

To become a true American, all an immigrant has to do is pledge allegiance to our “ideals” and the state, as well as pass a thorough civics exam. There’s a lot left out here. What about learning English? How does the immigrant view our history? Does the newcomer abandon his old homeland in favor of his new land? It’s implied they would know English, value our heritage, and be loyal only to America, but it’s unstated in favor of the greater priority of ideological commitment.

The Dissident Right doesn’t like this proposal at all. The idea that America is just an idea is repugnant to those who desire more meaning to our national identity. However, civic nationalism remains popular among the general population.

Ordinary conservatives would raise eyebrows at Vivek’s sole focus on civic ideals. If Ramaswamy added “culture” to the mix, more conservatives would agree to it. Regardless of commitment to America’s “ideals,” Americans aren’t going to consider someone who can’t speak English, maintains strange customs, and has little concern for our culture as an American.

For many immigrants, this is just a place to make money. Why would they abandon the love for their homeland to be fully loyal to the shopping mall nation? They may live in America, but their heart is elsewhere. Most Americans will resent this dual loyalty, but they themselves lack a strong ethnocultural identity of their own. All they have is America to call home, but most can only articulate it as a proposition or, like the new immigrants, as a place to make money.

Immigrants don’t feel the need to abandon their old loyalties as they face a core population that doesn’t quite know they are. Outside of our popular culture, the English language, and the “pursuit of happiness,” what else are they supposed to assimilate to?

For now, this isn’t a serious problem. We aren’t in a world war where we have to worry about a large fifth column siding with the enemy (yet). There’s plenty of money to go around to keep people content. Americans are granted plenty of liberty to pursue their individual desires and not worry about which group or identity is theirs.

This all works while prosperity and freedom reign. But what if they disappear? Social harmony won’t be guaranteed, that’s for sure.

Unhyphenated Americans are right to be annoyed by immigrants with citizenship papers asserting their old loyalty over the one they swore to the red, white, and blue. But the deeper problem is that the core population doesn’t really know who they are. The debate itself reflects that deeper identity crisis–and it won’t be resolved anytime soon.