One of many reasons conservatives are so often at a disadvantage in political discussions is that we do not see why there should be any discussion, since we do not recognize a problem open to discussion at all.
Take, for instance, assimilation. If you do not believe the United States should be accepting immigrants in the first place—and I mean, at this point in history, any immigrants at all—then the issue of whether immigrants should be made to assimilate is, at the very least, a secondary question, since your main concern is for halting immigration entirely.
The issue here is, among other things, whether solutions to the assimilation problem should be developed at the national level or the local one. Under the U.S. Constitution, the establishment of “a uniform rule of Naturalization” is entrusted to the federal government, not to the states that make up the federal union. The Constitution, however, is mum on the subject of any kind of rule, uniform or not, of assimilation; the Constitutional Convention never envisioned the central government needing to have a policy. This, of course, is because sedition, not assimilation, was what the new government believed it had to fear from uncooperative and malign aliens.
That is not to say that the Founding Fathers, as individual citizens, were unconcerned by nonassimilation—quite...