March 25, 2026

AMERICA HAS A CULTURE TO ASSIMILATE TO:

Why America is so much better than Europe at immigration (Kelsey Piper and Alexander Kustov, Mar 18, 2026, The Argument)


Americans are divided over immigration — in a recent YouGov/Economist poll, 55% said legal immigration should be increased or kept the same, and 46% said immigration makes the U.S. better off (only 24% say it makes the country worse off).

That’s a lot more support for immigration than you see across the Atlantic. In a YouGov poll of Germany, 32% of respondents said that legal immigration over the last 10 years was about right or too low, and only 24% said legal immigration has been mostly good for Germany. In the same survey of France, 33% said legal immigration was about right or too low, and 22% said it has been mostly good for France. Across every Western European country surveyed, there was about 50% support for ending all new migration and requiring many existing migrants to leave.

So in America, immigration is hotly contested; in Western Europe, it’s generally way underwater. But we’re not just talking about a difference in public opinion. By almost any metric you choose to name, immigration is working far better in the United States than non-EU immigration is working in Europe.

In the United States, immigrants are actually more likely to be employed than non-immigrants (but only just). In Germany, on the other hand, OECD data reveals that only 58% of non-EU immigrant prime-aged adults work, compared to 78% of non-immigrant Germans. In France it’s 52% (of non-EU immigrants) vs 66% (of French people).

Notably, in Spain, where immigration isn’t deep underwater politically (47% said legal immigration was about right or too low, and 42% said it has been mostly good for Spain) immigrant labor force participation is higher than native labor force participation.

In the United States, immigrants commit much less crime than natives; in Europe, non-EU immigrants generally commit much more crime than natives.

HOW THE ANGLOSPHERE REDEFINED SOVEREIGNTY:

Sovereignty of the Afghan State under the Taliban: The Taliban’s rule violates international norms, but that doesn’t give Pakistan the right to violate Afghanistan’s sovereignty. (Atal Ahmadzai | March 23, 2026, FPIF)

Sovereignty is a fundamental characteristic of the modern state and the basis of contemporary international order, upheld by international law, treaties, and judicial decisions. Key elements of state sovereignty include territorial supremacy, independence, non-intervention, equal rights, and internal jurisdiction. The UN Charter supports these principles by emphasizing “sovereign equality” among member states, prohibiting the threat or use of force against states, and protecting domestic jurisdiction.

Although defined as a state’s supreme authority over its territory and people, sovereignty is not static or absolute but rather subject to change and limitations. Initially, an absolute right of monarchs in the seventeenth century, it evolved into state sovereignty in the eighteenth century, and now reflects modern popular sovereignty. In the aftermath of twentieth-century atrocities committed by states, the concept of sovereignty increasingly highlights the authority of the people through constitutional rights and elected representation. Consequently, modern international law incorporates human rights considerations, among others, that limit state sovereignty. This limitation is particularly relevant to the Taliban regime.

No regime that is not liberal has a legitimate claim to sovereignty.