‘Turn the Temperature Down’: Panelists Talk National Unity, Immigration at Harvard Safra Center Talk

An interdisciplinary group of panelists mulled over immigration and national unity during a panel hosted by the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics on Wednesday.

“Tonight’s question, ‘What ties a nation together?’ couldn’t be more urgent. As someone who works in democratic theory, I’ve been struck by how quickly the discussions of national identity have veered away from civic ideals,” Government professor Eric Beerbohm, director of the Safra Center, said.

The talk was a part of the Center’s annual Civil Discourse series. The event featured panelists from a variety of backgrounds, including academia, journalism, and the military.

One of the speakers, Connor Flynn, a Marine Corps captain, said that his experience in the military shaped his beliefs on national unity.

“It is this drive — this ambition to be a part of that vision of a free society — one that ideally places the needs of others ahead of themselves” that brings together a group, Flynn said.

Flynn helps oversee the military naturalization program, which helps enlisted individuals and their families gain citizenship. He said that immigrants who enlisted “literally came forward because they want to make a difference, and they want to be a part of something.”

Some of the speakers pointed instead to the presence of a common threat as a “binding force” that can also foster national unity.

Flynn said that after the Sept. 11, 2021, terrorist attacks in New York City, “there wasn’t any sort of partisanship.”

“American flags were hoisted out the backs of trucks driving all over town,” he said. “People were helping one another.”

“I think the thing that brings together a nation, or ties the nation together, is either a common threat or a common set of opportunities,” said Harris Mylonas, an associate professor at George Washington University.

Some panelists offered a different perspective, saying that in the wake of 9/11, America appeared to be united against a common threat, but this was at the cost of exclusion of groups in American society.

“The common threat was binding, but part of the reason why it was binding is because it helped to crystallize our American values in an exclusionary way,” said Desireé Melonas, an assistant professor at the University of California Riverside.

Melonas said that American values usually feature “a kind of rugged individualism” where personal decisions, gains, and beliefs triumph overall.

“If we’re only thinking about ourselves, we’re not thinking about how we might create community where everybody can flourish,” she said.

The speakers also discussed the politics of belonging in the context of immigrant communities.

“Within some communities of immigrants, there exists a sentiment that legal pathways should not be opened for everybody,” said Silvia Foster-Frau, a national investigative reporter for The Washington Post focused on immigration.

When asked about possible reasons for this, Foster-Frau cited a “faith” in the immigration system that legal immigrants have.

Mylonas expanded on this point by adding that there is a dissociation that occurs when an immigrant becomes naturalized, calling it a “closing the door behind you mechanism.”

“When an immigrant ‘makes it,’ so to speak, and becomes naturalized, then there is a disassociation that happens with others, that sometimes has to do with status, sometimes has to do with actual competition,” Mylonas added.

The panel concluded with a discussion about how to have contentious conversations and identify a common humanity.

Foster-Frau said that her reporting experience showed her that “people actually have a lot more in common than we think.”

“It’s on all of us to turn the temperature down, to commit ourselves to having an open mind and encouraging dialogue – you know, inside voices, not screaming at one another,” Flynn said.