I am going to attempt to explain myself one more time in good faith, despite knowing that there is an entire cohort of people who have hijacked every conversation on immigration and pushed it further than any normal conservative wants to go if they actually understood what was at stake. Communism, fascism, and classical liberalism offer a fundamentally different answer to what it means to have rights within the nation you live in. Sure, there are iterations to these three philosophies, but they are the three main governing philosophies about an individual’s relationship with political power. Communism makes class and the abolition of all private ownership the price of admission. Fascism subordinates the individual to an authoritarian national project. The collective nation stands above any single individual. Nazism defined national belonging through race. Communism of yesteryear through class, today's version defines it through classes of oppressed victims. Classical liberalism protects individual rights, the freedom of conscience of every person, and equality before the law no matter what your race or religion or skin color is. In America, under our Constitution, skin color does not make you more or less American. This country is based on individual rights, not on any collective. The Constitution does not establish a category for “heritage American” because we do not have two classes of citizens, only one and they are all equal. Article I gives Congress the right to make uniform laws concerning naturalization. Congress exercised that power through the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted eligibility to free white people. That was a discriminatory statute enacted under the Constitution not a racial citizenship requirement written into the Constitution itself. Since this nation and every other nation is made up of flawed men who fall short of the glory of God, it has and will still continue to fall short. Congress replaced it in 1795 for the first time and since then. We are a nation of flawed human beings who have struggled to make our laws live up to our founding principles. Slavery and racial exclusion exposed the distance between the promise of equal rights and its practice. That is why 600,000 men paid for equal protection under the law for all in their blood. America was not founded on the thoughts and ideas of illiberal reactionary blood and soil or civilizational thought leaders of reactionary Europe. All illiberal thinkers organize their movements around a collective enemy. The collective enemy supplies movements with their most powerful organizing principle: an easy and succinct explanation for their suffering and a purpose through which members understand the problems in their own lives. The bourgeoisie obstructs the emancipation of the collective working class. The racial outsider threatens the safety and prosperity of the nation. The heretic endangers the religious unity of the polity. The oppressor perpetuates injustice against the oppressed. The liberal dissolves civilization. Each enemy has its own distinctive history, but the relationship it establishes within society is always the same. The future of the community, the nation, or the civilization depends on defeating the enemy, and in order to do so, leaders must acquire sufficient authority, or else the nation, the community, or the civilization will be lost. The contemporary revival of these older schools of thought has attempted to strip the labels of yesteryear from the ideologies they described, but that is not how language works. If you are a national socialist, you have a historical lineage that links you to fascism; if you are a socialist, you have a historical lineage that links you to communism. Lenin defended Soviet power through a new revolutionary class and excluded those he classified as being in opposition to his new utopian world order. His party claimed to represent the interests of all, but in reality it represented only the members within the protected friend class. A worker could not oppose the decisions of the party; his participation in the collective class was mandatory. Mussolini’s political doctrine folded political, economic, and spiritual life into the machinery of the state and required the individual’s participation in the entire project. National Socialism made racial belonging a fundamental requirement for political membership. They disagree on everything except the need for a collective enemy. Opposition to power is enough for you to be labeled the enemy. There is no moral distinction, and you don’t actually have to be wicked to be considered an enemy of the polity. And once you are the enemy, you can be defeated by any means necessary. These ideas of unequal citizenship and national identity that extends past LEGAL CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT SKIN COLOR is not conservative or classically liberal or part of the classical tradition. In The Fourth Political Theory, Aleksandr Dugin identifies the individual as liberalism’s political subject, class as communism’s, and the state, nation, or race as the subject of fascism and National Socialism. In Dugin’s account, liberalism defeated both of its twentieth-century rivals because of the Protestant Reformation’s insipid insistence on individual conscience as the defining good in society. Communism and fascism failed because neither could overcome the individual. It is this unhealthy connection to Protestantism, individualism, and modernity that Dugin seeks to sever. In his political project, we are all subjects rooted in land and tradition who belong to a distinct civilization, such as Eurasia. To describe that rootedness, he borrows from Heidegger’s concept of Dasein. The individual, in this world, has no standing apart from the civilization to which he belongs. Because every theory except liberalism subordinates the individual to something larger, Dugin’s framework rejects the limits of communism and fascism and instead embraces a totalitarian regime where communism and fascism can work together to defeat liberalism and modernity. Throughout modern history, illiberal movements drew Christian support by defining the community they promised to defend as the nation, the civilization, or the people united in the body of Christ. Adding the word white to that echoes back to the Christian restoration movements of Father Coughlin they were highly antisemitic, bigoted and tied to Nazism. That is not my assertion that is a documented fact. Christians have repeatedly decided these movements are the lesser of two evils against communism which has in modern times been expanded to include immigration. And, in many cases, the necessary evil to defeat revolutionary movements organized around the godless worker or the oppressed person. But choosing one collective identity over another doesn’t absolve Christians of the moral dilemma of collectivism. Religious language deployed by charismatic charlatans often provides what the masses deem sacred justification. Whether a movement calls itself integralism, Christian nationalism, or a Christian reactionary movement, it places an individual’s loyalty to a Christian collective movement above the personal obedience to Christ that the faith demands of each believer. Christ is the head of the church, and no political leader, nation, or civilization can assume His rightful place (Colossians 1:18). Believers form one royal priesthood, but membership in that body does not replace the individual accountability each believer has before God (1 Peter 2:9). As Christians, we are commanded to retain our discernment (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and personal responsibility before our Lord and Savior (Romans 14:12). A believer must not surrender his individual judgment to the leaders of a collective movement under the banner of Christianity. “We ought to obey God rather than men” governs our allegiance (Acts 5:29). Therefore, whenever a movement demands the allegiance owed to Christ and proceeds to claim the authority to excuse what He condemns, it becomes idolatry. Therefore, whether it calls itself integralism, Christian nationalism, or a Christian reactionary movement, any project that places allegiance to a Christian collective above the believer’s obedience to Christ violates the faith it claims to defend. Christ established a boundary around earthly authority: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Caesar’s image appeared on the coin, but God’s image appears in us. We are image-bearers of God, and therefore our conscience is accountable only to Him (Genesis 1:27). Each of us will stand before God one day and have to answer for our choices, and there will be no nation, church, party, or charismatic leader that will be allowed to stand in our place (Romans 14:10–12). This is why classical liberalism’s protection of the human conscience makes it the only version of government that aligns with Christianity. Constitutional restraints prevent rulers from exercising jurisdiction over the human conscience. Caesar’s authority is over the coin, never the soul. As believers, we must strive to embody the character of the God we serve and the character of Christ. He called His people to love one another and to show their love for Him through obedience, rebuked disciples who sought to punish those who rejected Him, and distinguished His kingdom from the earthly one (John 13:34–35; John 14:15; Luke 9:51–55; John 18:36). The jurisdictional boundary around the conscience applies to believers and nonbelievers alike. A person’s rejection of Christ does not allow us to subject his conscience to man; it still belongs to Christ, whether he submits or not, because one day he will stand before Him and answer for his sins. When political leaders make Christian identity the rallying cry for collectivism against some enemy, they are not acting on behalf of Christ; they are acting on behalf of themselves. Their claim to represent Him must be met with discernment and obedience to Christ as He is revealed to believers in Scripture. We must preach, teach, disciple, and spread the good news of the gospel, but we are not permitted to force worship on those who don’t choose it freely. And a movement that acts against the character of the God it serves cannot be called Christian because, as believers, we wear the name of the Lord and Savior whom we choose to submit to and obey. The immigration conversation has been hijacked to push Christian collective white identify instead of the real problem, unchecked immigration that is overwhelming the country and its resources and encouraging people who hate it to help overthrow it. One project leads to better policies. The other leads to Nazi Germany. I hope that helped you out.