1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives (ft. Mehdi Hasan)

The fear was always the same: "They're not like us." Whether it was religion, language, or culture, the narrative repeated itself.

During a recent debate, a conservative commentator expressed concern over modern immigration, claiming that today's migrants-especially from the southern border-"have nothing in common with us."

But a more historically grounded perspective quickly reminded him that similar fears were used against Catholics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Irish and Italian Catholics were once the "other" too, accused of undermining American values.

Yet history has shown that these immigrant groups assimilated, integrated, and eventually contributed immensely to the fabric of American life. Assimilation rates today-based on language acquisition, citizenship, and participation-are reportedly higher than they were a century ago, according to researchers like Jacob Vigdor at the University of Washington. This points to a continuing pattern: immigrants adapt, enrich, and strengthen the nation, despite initial resistance.

The Birthright Citizenship Debate: A Constitutional Legacy Under Fire

The debate around birthright citizenship-guaranteed by the 14th Amendment-has once again surged into public discourse. Some argue that birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration and should be reinterpreted. They point to the clause: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," suggesting that it was never intended to apply universally.

However, legal precedent and historical interpretation tell a different story.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to codify a long-standing legal principle: those born on U.S. soil are citizens. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude diplomats and foreign emissaries-not undocumented immigrants. This was made clear in the legislative debates of the time and reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen Chinese immigrants were citizens under the Constitution.

Critics who argue for removing birthright citizenship often do so to combat what they call "anchor babies," suggesting that some immigrants intentionally have children in the U.S. to secure legal status. Even if there are instances of this behavior, it does not justify dismantling a foundational constitutional principle that has stood the test of time.

The Core of American Values: Inclusion, Democracy, and the Rule of Law

What becomes evident in these debates is that many critics of immigration often claim to defend "American values." Yet, as pointed out in the discussion, some of these same individuals simultaneously express disdain for democratic institutions, diversity, and inclusive citizenship-values that are themselves deeply American.

Ironically, it's often the descendants of past immigrant groups, once vilified, who now resist the arrival of new immigrants, forgetting that their own ancestors faced the same scrutiny. If we believe in the Constitution, in democracy, in freedom of speech, and in human dignity-then we must apply those principles universally, not selectively.

Learning From History to Shape the Future

Every era has had its "Brian"-a figure warning that now is different, that these immigrants are incompatible. But the story of America proves otherwise. Immigrants-no matter where they come from-eventually become part of the whole. They bring energy, culture, labor, and new ideas. Yes, immigration brings challenges, but it also brings opportunity and renewal.

Rather than tear down constitutional principles or fear the changing face of the nation, we should uphold the values that made America what it is: a place where freedom, law, and inclusion intersect. The story of immigration is not just a story of outsiders coming in-it's the story of how America itself was made.

Let's remember that.