A profound ideological transformation has reshaped American political discourse regarding race and immigration. Throughout the 2010s, conservative voices increasingly embraced Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a colorblind society, particularly his famous aspiration that individuals “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This marked a significant departure from historical patterns, where progressive advocates had traditionally championed King’s message.
The landscape shifted as progressive movements increasingly rejected colorblindness as an adequate solution to systemic racial disparities. Instead, they advocated for race-conscious policies addressing income, wealth, and incarceration gaps through initiatives like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This approach manifested across American business, government, academia, and media spaces.
Recently, however, a dramatic reversal has occurred within right-wing circles. Prominent MAGA figures including Donald Trump and former Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller have openly embraced racial collectivism—judging individuals based on their ethnic or national groups rather than personal character. This philosophy echoes early 20th-century immigration restrictionists who argued against admitting immigrants from “beaten races” and “underdeveloped nations.
The current manifestation emerged through statements condemning entire ethnic groups based on individual actions or conditions in their countries of origin. Trump’s comments about Somali immigrants and Miller’s dismissal of individualism in favor of group-based assessment represent a fundamental philosophical shift from their previous embrace of King’s ideals.
Historical parallels exist in the immigration debates of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when restrictionists similarly argued that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would degrade American society due to their countries’ relative underdevelopment.
Empirical evidence contradicts the racial collectivist worldview. Indian immigrants, despite coming from a country with lower GDP per capita than El Salvador, have become one of America’s most successful demographic groups by household income, education levels, and entrepreneurial achievement. Similarly, El Paso—with its predominantly Mexican-American population—maintains dramatically lower violence rates than neighboring Juarez, demonstrating how American institutions transform outcomes regardless of ethnic composition.
The MAGA movement’s emphasis on immigration restriction appears driven by this collectivist worldview rather than individual assessment. Recent attempts to portray immigrant groups negatively, such as false claims about Haitian immigrants in Ohio or highlighting welfare fraud among some Somalis in Minnesota, suggest strategic efforts to shift public discourse toward group-based judgment.
This philosophical conflict ultimately represents a battle for America’s fundamental identity: whether the nation will maintain its traditional individualistic ethos or transition toward what historian John Higham termed “racism”—judging people according to collective racial accomplishments rather than individual merit.
Recent polling indicates most Americans still support immigration and individual assessment principles, suggesting the collectivist approach may face significant public resistance despite its growing prominence in political rhetoric.