Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said in a recorded interview Tuesday that a reluctance among some elite institutions to affirm a common American identity is undermining assimilation and complicating current immigration policy debates.
Krikorian argued that when political, business and cultural leaders treat Americanization as undesirable or optional, newcomers face fewer social incentives to adopt common civic norms, which in turn affects governance and public safety discussions about how to manage large inflows of people. He warned that enforcement alone will not fix the broader cultural and institutional dynamics at play, according to a Fox News report.
The debate is central to how policymakers balance border control, civic integration and fiscal priorities, and it touches on issues covered in our Border Coverage. Questions about assimilation influence public confidence in institutions, the rule of law and the practical results of enforcement actions, analysts say.
Background
Krikorian framed assimilation as a broad social process that depends on schools, workplaces, houses of worship and civic institutions reinforcing shared language and civic habits. He argued these institutions are sending mixed messages about whether an overarching American identity should be actively taught.
He listed several trends he believes weaken traditional pressures to assimilate: shifts in institutional messaging, easy long-distance communication, cheaper international travel and growing immigrant networks that maintain ties to countries of origin. Those factors, he said, reduce the daily social pressure that once encouraged newcomers to adopt U.S. civic practices.
Scholars and demographers note that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population has grown in recent decades but remains below peaks seen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau place the foreign-born share in recent years roughly in the mid-teens percentage range; it is not the highest in U.S. history.
Details From Officials and Records
Krikorian said high levels of foreign-born residents increase the urgency of clearer civic messaging and more robust integration efforts. He emphasized that enforcement actions, including arrests and removals reported by federal agencies, address legal compliance but do not by themselves create the civic habits that sustain long-term social cohesion.
- He pointed to modern communications and travel as factors that let immigrants keep stronger ties to their birth countries, which can slow linguistic and cultural assimilation.
- Rather than relying solely on enforcement, Krikorian recommended policy tools that strengthen naturalization, civic education, and local programs that encourage English-language learning and community engagement.
- He urged officials to measure integration through outcomes such as employment, education attainment, naturalization rates, and civic participation rather than focusing only on counts at the border.
Those recommendations align with longstanding policy debates. Supporters of stronger enforcement argue that border control and removals are essential to uphold law and order. Critics counter that assimilation is often multigenerational and that coercive measures without supportive integration policies can erode trust in government and hamper long-term public safety.
Reactions and Next Steps
Krikorian called on leaders at local, state and federal levels to promote a positive narrative about shared civic identity. He suggested using the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026 as a focal point for expanded civic education, public ceremonies and school curricula that teach constitutional principles, U.S. history and civic responsibilities.
He drew on his own family’s immigrant background to illustrate how mid-20th century schools and civic rituals reinforced a sense of belonging for new Americans. He said reviving similar practices would not eliminate differences but could strengthen common civic norms that support the rule of law.
Policy experts say any push to promote assimilation must consider legal and constitutional limits, the diversity of immigrant experiences and the practical demands on schools and community organizations. Programs that expand English instruction, encourage naturalization, and support workforce integration have bipartisan precedents and receive backing from some law enforcement and business leaders who see benefits for public safety and economic stability.
Policy Context
Immigration policy in the United States has long balanced enforcement with integration. Major legal shifts, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, changed the composition of immigrant flows, and local policies have varied by state and city. Federal agencies regularly publish enforcement and removal figures, and those numbers shape political debates about funding, staffing and border operations.
At the state and local level, elected officials decide how public schools, community colleges and workforce programs support English-language acquisition and civics instruction. Those choices affect whether newcomers can access the social levers that facilitate economic mobility and civic participation.
Analysis
Krikorian’s argument frames assimilation as a governance issue that intersects with enforcement policy. If influential institutions retreat from promoting common civic standards, the social incentives for integration may weaken, complicating efforts to maintain public safety and adherence to shared rules of law.
Policymakers face a tradeoff between near-term enforcement actions and longer-term investments in civic education, naturalization support and community-based programs that foster integration. Effective governance will likely require a mix of credible enforcement to uphold laws and sustained investments in institutions that cultivate civic habits and trust.
The practical stakes for local governments include school curricula, workforce readiness and public-safety partnerships that rely on community cooperation. At the federal level, choices about enforcement priorities, immigration admissions and funding for integration programs will shape how well newcomers are incorporated into civic life and how resilient institutions remain under demographic change.
Ultimately, the debate is about how leaders choose to balance rule of law, cultural cohesion and fiscal priorities. That balance will influence public trust in institutions and the long-term capacity of the United States to integrate new arrivals while maintaining public safety and accountable governance.
