Why Immigration Is the Most Potent Identity Issue

Answering some criticism of “Immigration, the Indispensable Issue”

Last week I argued that immigration is the indispensable issue for the Right. It made Donald Trump president and continues to animate nationalist movements across the West. It illustrates the Great Replacement and forces Americans to ask what makes our nation truly American. 

But some friends questioned my thesis. They argue the real race issue in America isn’t immigrants, it’s centered on blacks. These critics say the issues with greater potency are those that address America’s real race problem. These include crime, critical race theory, affirmative action, and civil rights law. One critic pointed to my article on why Americans seem disinterested in immigration when compared to Europeans.

As I argued then:

In Europe, the Great Replacement means immigrants replacing the natives in their own cities. In America, something like that has already happened–but it wasn’t done by immigrants. Integration was America’s Great Replacement. It transformed neighborhoods, schools, and cities in just a few years and caused whites to flee their homes. Americans already experienced that loss of what once was theirs.

This is all true and I stand by what I said. But it’s also true that while Americans may not seem to care as much about immigration, it’s still the core identity issue. That’s not to dismiss these other issues. The Right should prioritize identity issues over other concerns, so this shouldn’t be an either/or question. Immigration is still central to that effort. It’s the chief feature of the Great Replacement. Not resolving it means the death of America. Period. 

Some say we should de-emphasize immigration to focus more on civil rights law and affirmative action. Two representatives of this position are Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and political scientist Richard Hanania. Both figures are very strong on matters concerning racial preferences, crime, and civil rights law. Both, however, are pro-immigration. That’s not surprising considering both men have immigrant backgrounds.

Ramaswamy’s main political pitch is doing away with much of the civil rights regime. He has targeted specifically an executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson for establishing affirmative action practices. The Indian entrepreneur promises to end that, as well as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” practices in business and education. He calls affirmative action anti-white and anti-Asian. He also correctly notices that critical race theory teaches non-whites to hate whites. 

At the same time, Ramaswamy wants even more people like his parents to come to the U.S. He opposes illegal immigration, but he is certainly not an immigration restrictionist.

Much of the same applies to Hanania. Hanania has written some insightful articles on the civil rights regime and how it underpins much of contemporary madness. But he isn’t bothered by immigration and thinks it’s a good thing. “For all conservative complaints about the disorder caused by immigration, I see no immigrants in the videos of urban disorder they’re getting excited about,” read a recent Hanania tweet. 

You could call this position “anti-civil rights regime/pro-immigration.” It’s not widely-held, but it is an alternative view that stems from a genuine insight. And while most people on the Right would not go as far as the Ramaswamy position on immigration, some may take this position because “immigration is settled” or that civil rights law is a better “identitarian” focus. 

This is mistaken. We do not have to accept a false binary. We can equally care about dismantling the civil rights regime and ending mass third world immigration. Stressing the civil rights aspect is just a call to better manage the Great Replacement. The entire country’s demographic future is primarily threatened by immigration. “Foundational Black Americans” are not the ones swamping the country, even though their culture is now predominant.  

Gutting civil rights law would be a terrific victory. But if it’s not paired with immigration restriction, it will still lead to white replacement. A Civil Rights Act-free America would benefit Asians primarily. Racial quotas would no longer restrict their numbers at elite colleges and national quotas would no longer limit their numbers at ports of entry. They would become America’s new elite caste while Latin Americans and Africans pour in to become the country’s new working class. America would no longer be America, but at least Harvard would accept kids based on their SAT rather than on their skin color.

Many conservatives oppose affirmative action while supporting mass immigration. There is hardly anyone who supports immigration restriction and the civil rights regime. Sometimes restrictionists do bring up the fact that mass immigration harms blacks economically. But that’s about the only appeal made to liberal belief. Meanwhile, the prevailing argument against affirmative action now is how much it hurts Asians. One of the affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court focuses entirely on how Harvard discriminates against Asians. It makes no mention of whites. To his credit, Ramaswamy is one of the few mainstream conservatives who reminds audiences that the practice also hurts whites. 

Immigration cannot be separated from race and identity. As an issue, it resonates deeply with ordinary conservatives and makes them think about forbidden topics. Opposition to affirmative action and critical race theory is often pitched to advance race denialism or to support minority group interests. That can never really be done with immigration. That issue always comes back to race and identity.

The primary purpose of the American Right is to inculcate group consciousness within the historic American people. The immigration issue remains the best way to do that. Affirming immigration as the core issue does not deny the importance of America’s other racial problems. We should highlight the dangers of affirmative action, crime, and critical race theory. There’s not a single encompassing frame that includes every issue and that has an identitarian resonance with the public. The public believes it has freedom of association and opposes racial preferences on meritocratic grounds. This may change with a greater abundance of anti-white racism, but so far it hasn’t. 

Any issue that leads the American right in a more identitarian direction is positive. The issues that point away from this longer term goal are a distraction. These include scores of frivolous, non-identitarian issues that obsess conservatives. Drag queens and gender neutral toys are gross, but they don’t threaten our civilization’s future. Mass immigration and the civil rights regime do. We can’t recover from another century of replacement.