What makes England, England? In what ways it is different from France? Both are liberal parliamentary republics; to practical purposes, England is a secular democracy, like France. Why are there borders between the two?

When immigrants come to the United States, what do they profess allegiance to? Technically, their oath requires allegiance to American laws. But what if those laws were to change to allow slavery—should citizens uphold them then?

Political liberalism and moral nihilism pretend that all countries are similar. In a leftist’s world, there is no difference between England and France, between America and Polynesia. A country’s character is viewed as cultural aberration at best, and more often as a violation of personal freedom.

Countries are defined by their cultural core. Politically, there might be no difference between Britain and France, but there is an unmistakable cultural difference. In fact, the difference is merely cultural because leftists pushed it out of the political sphere, where it properly belongs. If France is a Christian country, there is no reason for the state to ashamedly finance its cathedrals as religion-neutral cultural heritage—they must be supported as proudly Christian institutions. If a country’s people want cathedrals, it is their right to finance them. Policies need not be neutral, but must reflect popular wishes. A State is legitimate only insofar as it promulgates people’s wishes and values rather than imposes its own blank-slate values on them.

No state is neutral: liberal England has Christian weekend and holidays, speaks English rather than Urdu, and has a history offensive to the better half of the world.

Immigrants come to states because they have a certain character. By the act of immigration they accept the state’s values and profess allegiance to them. It is leftist madness rather than democracy to allow immigrants to tear down those very values which, theoretically, attracted them to move in the first place. If Pakistani immigrants to Britain love sharia so much that they want to practice it in their new homeland, they should have stayed in their old country.

Even natural citizens do not have a right to change a state’s values as they wish. Americans cannot vote to reinstate slavery. Immigrant citizens therefore cannot change their host state’s values. The Torah wisely commands that Egyptian immigrants can only enter Israeli society after three generations (Deut23:8-9). They can live among Jews and possess property, and they are entitled to civil protection, but may not be counted in the political assembly. Living in Israel they have to observe the basic values of the land, such as the ban on leaven on Pesach. After several generations, if they are accustomed to those laws and substantially assimilated in local culture, then they can safely be involved in the political process.

Immigrants can have personal, but not political rights.