How Immigration Broke NYC and Delivered It to an Islamic Marxist

New York City once sold a simple promise, come here, work hard, join a common culture that made room for newcomers without dissolving the whole. That promise has thinned. The city that described itself as a model of the American melting pot now functions like a patchwork of parallel societies that share streets but not a civic center. This is not a claim made in anger. It is the sober conclusion one reaches when the city’s own data are set beside its policies and its new political trajectory. If you want to understand where this leads, look at the man most likely to be the next mayor, Zohran Mamdani, an Islamic Marxist who became a citizen just seven years ago and now proposes to scale up the very sanctuary architecture that strained the city’s schools, hospitals, courts, and budget. The issue is not his background (though troubling), the issue is the program, a program that enshrines permanent dependency and treats assimilation as optional.

Begin with scale, because scale governs possibility. Nearly two fifths of New Yorkers are foreign born, a share that would challenge even a well aligned integration system. The dominant origins today are the Dominican Republic, China, and Jamaica, which is a different profile from earlier European heavy waves. Those facts alone do not indict immigration, they do, however, heighten the importance of a firm common language and shared civic norms. On that front the city is slipping. Roughly one in five residents has limited English proficiency, and New York’s public schools now educate children who, taken together, speak 156 different languages at home. Teachers cannot conjure qualified bilingual staff in dozens of tongues, administrators cannot translate every service into scores of dialects without diluting other priorities, and students cannot reach grade level when the medium of instruction is constantly fragmented. In an earlier era, public schools were engines of Americanization. Today, they are being asked to sustain islands of language alongside the curriculum, which is a very different task.

The second constraint is fiscal. New York has spent billions in a short period to house, feed, and service recent arrivals, including large outlays for emergency shelters and purpose built relief centers. Hospitals expanded taxpayer supported programs so that uninsured newcomers could obtain primary and emergency care. Agencies layered on translation, transportation, technology, and navigation services. None of this is free. City and state watchdogs document multibillion dollar annual costs while warning about overlapping contracts, poor data sharing, and weak accountability. New York has grown a humanitarian bureaucracy inside city government, one that now commands a permanent claim on the budget. Supporters say this is moral leadership. But budgets require tradeoffs. Every dollar that sustains a newcomer in a hotel room is a dollar not spent fixing a boiler in the New York City Housing Authority or putting another cop on the beat. When leadership says there is no money for infrastructure or for restoring police headcount, ordinary citizens notice the contrast.

There is also the matter of what the aid buys. The old integration bargain asked much of newcomers. The new model asks little. City policy cushions extended unemployment among migrants and recent arrivals while guaranteeing shelter, food, and extensive services regardless of status. The point is not to deny emergency aid, the point is to note what prolonged substitution does to human capital formation. If you subsidize non work you entrench non work. The city’s own labor force snapshots show large pools of non employment among immigrant groups, not evenly distributed, and a long queue for work authorization. Advocates insist that work permits will solve everything. Permits help, but they do not supply English, education, or networks, and they do not erase the incentives created by a local welfare architecture that treats new entrants as permanent program clients (literally) rather than temporary beneficiaries aiming for independence.

Legal policy magnifies the problem. Over the last two years City Hall funded a legal services empire to maximize retention in the United States. The flagship was the Asylum Seeker Legal Assistance Network, a city coordinated web of clinics, navigation centers, and nonprofit law shops tasked with screening, preparing, and filing cases, and with shepherding applicants through complex rules. A city can decide to underwrite representation. The question is what that does to the system’s integrity. The best studies show that legal representation drastically changes outcomes in immigration court. That is not inherently nefarious, it is a reality of an adversarial system. Yet when a municipality pours hundreds of millions into one side of the aisle, then touts near perfect win rates in parts of its ecosystem, reasonable observers will ask whether the city has built an advocacy machine whose purpose is to nullify removal through volume, coaching, and strategic venue. The optics are not helped by the judge by judge grant rates in the New York courts, where some benches approve the vast majority of claims. Even if every lawyer and judge acts in good faith, the public reads this as a promise that, in New York, almost everyone who makes it to a city funded clinic will stay. That promise changes behavior upstream, and not for the better.

Culture rounds out the picture. The traditional American expectation was simple, keep your heritage, adopt the civic core. That is why E Pluribus Unum became a national motto. New York once modeled this equilibrium, a shared civic story big enough to absorb many origins. The city government now signals a different ideal, a museum of nations underwritten by municipal budgets. Dozens of flag raisings for foreign nations on City Hall’s plaza may be festive, but they are also a statement about identity, one that prizes ancestral nations as public symbols instead of orienting newcomers toward the American flag as the shared emblem of loyalty. Sustained in policy, that symbolism hardens into political balkanization, as offices, budgets, media, and advocacy groups organize around ethnic lines. That is a recipe for grievance politics as groups compete for slices of a finite pie, and it corrodes civic friendship.

Now consider the electoral consequence. Zohran Mamdani, an Islamic Marxist Assemblyman and recent citizen, rides this wave. He promises free buses, city run grocery stores, rent freezes, and a higher minimum wage stepped up by decree. He proposes to enlarge the legal aid architecture for non citizens, to widen sanctuary protocols that blunt cooperation with federal enforcement, and to funnel more money into multilingual education and social services targeted by origin and language. He is intelligent, disciplined, and fluent in the rhetoric of solidarity. He also represents a decisive break with the assimilationist center that once governed New York. If his program prevails, the city will not correct course, it will double down.

A critic should be fair. Defenders of New York’s current policy can cite gains. Some recent immigrant New Yorkers work, pay taxes, open businesses, and enrich neighborhoods. That is true and worth honoring. Others will say that all the city has done is stand up emergency scaffolding to manage a crisis created by federal neglect, then use that scaffolding to prevent exploitation and fraud. Some will point to humanitarian and religious imperatives. All of that deserves a hearing. But two truths remain. First, the sheer scale of recent inflows into one city collapses the time window for natural assimilation. Second, the city’s chosen tools, from blanket shelter guarantees to subsidized legal war rooms to multi language governance, are not bridges back to a single civic culture, they are bridges to permanent separation.

The hard question is what a responsible course correction looks like. The answer begins with decisive enforcement and a return to civic order. New York City must initiate the remigration of all illegal aliens and a significant share of temporary immigrants whose presence has exceeded the city’s capacity. For those who remain legally, assimilation must be required, not requested. City leadership should wind down emergency hotel placements, restore policing and basic services to top budget priority, and end taxpayer funding for non citizen legal defense. Schools must make rapid English acquisition mandatory rather than tolerating years of fragmented bilingualism. Agencies should dismantle redundant identity-based contracts and redirect those resources to programs that strengthen shared civic life. Limits are not cruelty, they are the discipline a sovereign city must exercise to protect its citizens and preserve the conditions that make lawful immigration sustainable.

What about the reply that diversity is New York’s strength. It is not. Diversity, when elevated above unity, becomes a weakness. While we can acknowledge and respect the varied heritages of immigrants, we must celebrate only our shared identity as Americans, the product of the melting pot where differences are refined into a common culture. Diversity without assimilation fragments a nation; unity forged from shared purpose sustains it. The melting pot metaphor matters here: it does not erase ingredients, it tempers them through the heat of civic duty and shared standards until they form something stronger. New York cooled the fire and widened the pot, and now the mixture refuses to bind.

If you worry that this diagnosis is unfair, run the counterfactual. Imagine that, beginning tomorrow, New York tied every non emergency benefit for non citizens to concrete benchmarks of English acquisition, employment, and civics, and that it set clear time limits for city support, with narrow humanitarian exceptions. Imagine that it consolidated the legal aid ecosystem into a transparent unit with tight outcome reporting, and barred city dollars from coaching narratives. Imagine that it replaced most translation mandates with a Manhattan Project for English instruction, while protecting ballot access and emergency services. Imagine, finally, that it replaced performative cosmopolitanism with renewed civic patriotism, and that it taught every child, immigrant or native born, that the flag on City Hall Plaza is the one that binds us. If you think those moves would improve the city, then you already agree that the current model is wrong.

New York’s soul is not lost beyond recall. It is simply buried under a mountain of well intended programs that shifted the telos of immigration away from joining toward subsidized cohabitation. Cities are moral teachers. For a decade, New York has taught new arrivals to live here as clients of government and as members of protected sub communities. It should return to the older lesson, live here as Americans, and meet your neighbors in the civic square we all share. That is what a great city owes to the world, and to itself.

If you enjoy my work, please share my work and subscribe https://x.com/amuse.

---

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification, unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline driven outlets.