After Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) made inflammatory remarks at a pro-Palestinian conference, a warning has echoed from a noted expert about the implications of America’s immigration policies. Simon Hankinson, an author and senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, voiced concerns that recent trends in immigration have ushered in anti-American ideals and “ethno-politics.”
Tlaib, a second-generation Palestinian American, took to the stage in Detroit to criticize both Israeli leadership and the United States itself. Her dramatic statements included a rallying cry that directed anger at “genocide enablers” and claims about America functioning as an “empire in Washington, D.C.” Hankinson’s remarks spotlight the dangers of such rhetoric coming from elected officials, especially those with complex loyalties.
“When you take the oath of citizenship, one of the things that you’re supposed to say is that you renounce all allegiances to foreign potentates or rulers,” Hankinson stated. He believes that dual allegiances can endanger the integrity of U.S. governance. He also stressed the long-standing tradition of loyalty to the U.S. as a fundamental principle—a principle he feels has weakened over the decades.
Hankinson pointed back to the significant immigration policy changes of 1965, which he says allowed for a broad increase in immigration from around the world. This, he argues, brought not only diverse perspectives but also tensions from their countries of origin. “When you bring people into your country, you bring all of them with you… If they have beefs that they brought with them from the old country, then those can take a generation or two to die out,” he said.
The resulting climate has been marked by a decline in assimilation and a surge in identity-based politics. Tlaib’s remarks exemplify this trend as she condemned historical injustices in the U.S. while connecting them to wider global conflicts. In her speech, she claimed that the current U.S. government mirrors oppressive regimes abroad, specifically pointing to actions in Gaza as indicative of broader systemic issues in America.
“To criticize the country and its very foundations… is a very dangerous thing to do,” Hankinson warned. He highlighted that the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid the intense ethnic and tribal conflicts seen in places like Lebanon and parts of Africa—a fact he feels could be jeopardized by a rise in divisive politics.
Hankinson’s observations were reinforced by statements from other members of Congress within the progressive spectrum. Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-IL) declared her identity as a “proud Guatemalan” over her American citizenship during a recent conference in Mexico, stirring debate over national loyalty. In another instance, Rep. Ilhan Omar remarked that the U.S. under Trump had devolved into one of the worst countries globally. Such comments reflect a growing sentiment among some on the left where cultural roots are prioritizing division over national unity.
Hankinson noted that assimilation appears to have become a “dirty word” for some progressive lawmakers, with many resisting a shared understanding of what it means to be an American. “I don’t think you can be considered assimilated if you come here… without ever loving this country,” he said. He expressed concern about enclaves where cultural retention may prevent individuals from fully integrating into American society, further propelling divisions.
These dynamics pose a complex challenge: balancing the retention of cultural identities with fostering a cohesive national identity. As Tlaib and her colleagues voice grievances about American history and governance, Hankinson suggests that they risk alienating constituents who expect their leaders to prioritize the nation first.
In an era where discussions around immigration and identity are becoming increasingly polarized, the implications of Tlaib’s speech, along with the concerns raised by Hankinson, may serve as a pivotal moment in the dialogue on loyalty and identity in America today. Hankinson’s insights call for a reexamination of policies that could prevent the erosion of shared national values amid a backdrop of diverse perspectives. Without a unifying commitment to American principles, he warns, the country could be fostering a new era of ethno-politics that hampers progress and diminishes national unity.
"*" indicates required fields
