Thank you for the detailed comment.
To address both your points:
1. First, it must be said that we need to be careful with how we interpret such data. For example, extrapolating national attitudes for millions of people based on the responses of a few thousand respondents can be misleading (the chief reason why I avoided implying anything about ethnic groups from the naturalization surveys). Likewise, speaking generally of an ethnic/religious group when your own data shows great variation can lead to mischaracterization, like the fact that fewer than 10% of Azerbaijani Muslim respondents supported Sharia law and polygamy in the Pew Survey that you cite. But data and obvious claims of controversy aside, there is one other point I do need to bring up.
It is perfectly reasonable to desire thorough vetting of foreigners seeking to live in the U.S. The government does that already. However, I must ask: If an immigrant does not espouse many “Western beliefs” because of cultural influence and/or propaganda in their native countries, does that therefore mean they can’t acclimate and appreciate Western culture after arriving to the U.S.? The U.S. government historically thought this was possible, which is one of the reasons why naturalization today continues to require that immigrants live as permanent residents for at least 5 years, giving them sufficient time (theoretically) to assimilate, both culturally and linguistically.
Moreover, the screening process for visas already assesses candidates’ past and histories of crime of “moral turpitude.” There is also screening through FBI background checks during green card applications, not to mention ideological questionnaires given out during the naturalization process (some anecdotes here). But if you believe — and to be clear, there is no evidence that you do— that stricter cultural screening should be installed in the vetting process, then I would be interested in any definitive proof of a failure of cultural assimilation for Muslim and/or other immigrant groups (like a peer-reviewed study or methodologically-sound survey that compares these groups’ political and cultural beliefs before and after settling in the U.S.). Your support of the RAISE Act shows that you support meritocracy in the immigration system, but I am curious as to your thoughts on this topic, especially since my article purposely avoids talks of ideal policies and because I am trying to figure out which blind spot you’re referring to.
2. The question of a more meritocratic immigration system is certainly a relevant one, but it steps beyond my focus on assimilation, much like the implication you brought up in point 1.
Presumably, some would contend that an immigrant can “Americanize” yet fail to economically contribute to society (a controversial and debatable statement in its own right). Here again is the problem of different optics vis-à-vis American identity. So I wouldn’t call the exclusion of this topic a blind spot per se. Much like in my discussion of Salam, important policy debates like these need to take a backseat to the more pressing question of national identity. Otherwise we may never break free from our echo chambers.
