Politics & Power Quote by John Shadegg

Shadegg’s numbers aren’t just statistics; they’re a political argument dressed up as demography. By stacking percentages in quick succession, he builds a courtroom brief: property, remittances, spouses. Each data point is chosen because it signals enduring ties, and together they imply a suspect loyalty - a life lived in two places that can be framed as not fully “here.” The rhetorical move is subtle: he doesn’t accuse immigrants of wrongdoing outright. He lets the audience do the prosecuting, inviting a conclusion that cross-border attachment is evidence against belonging.

The key phrase is the pivot: “Assimilation and becoming an American citizen are not the objective.” It converts complex, often pragmatic behavior into a unified intent, as if a diverse population has a single goal and that goal is refusal. Owning property in Mexico can be retirement planning, hedging against instability, or a safety net in a precarious U.S. labor market. Remittances can be obligation, love, or the reality of wage gaps. A spouse in Mexico can reflect immigration backlogs as much as preference. Shadegg’s framing collapses all of that into a narrative of deliberate non-assimilation.

Context matters: coming from a U.S. politician, this reads as border-era messaging aimed at voters anxious about cultural change. “Assimilation” becomes a moral test rather than a messy, generational process; citizenship becomes a litmus strip for gratitude. The subtext: if people maintain transnational lives, they can be treated as permanent outsiders - and policy can follow that suspicion, from tightened enforcement to skepticism toward integration itself.