‘Among the generals of Washington in the Revolutionary War were Greene, Putnam and Lee, who were of English descent; Wayne and Sullivan, who were of Irish descent; Marion, who was of French descent; Schuyler, who was of Dutch descent, and Muhlenberg and Herkemer, who were of German descent,’ Teddy Roosevelt said in a speech, ‘but they were all of them Americans and nothing else, just as much as Washington. Carroll of Carrollton was a Catholic; Hancock a Protestant; Jefferson was heterodox from the standpoint of any orthodox creed; but these and all the other signers of the Declaration of Independence stood on an equality of duty and right and liberty, as Americans and nothing else. So it was in the Civil War. Farragut’s father was born in Spain and Sheridan’s father in Ireland; Sherman and Thomas were of English and Custer of German descent; and Grant came of a long line of American ancestors whose original home had been Scotland. But the Admiral was not a Spanish-American; and the Generals were not Scotch-Americans or Irish-Americans or English-Americans or German-Americans. They were all Americans and nothing else.’
The Rooseveltian idea of a Republic is simple and lost. It is based on a simple dynamic: Republics are above all built on blood ties, and nothing more than that actively makes one a true republican. As Roosevelt continued, ‘this was just as true of Lee and of Stonewall Jackson and of Beauregard. When in 1909 our battle fleet returned from its voyage around the world, Admirals Wainwright and Schroeder represented the best traditions and the most effective action in our navy; one was of old American blood and of English descent; the other was the son of German immigrants. But one was not a Native American and the other a German-American. Each was an American, pure and simple. Each bore allegiance only to the flag of the United States.’ The 250th year of the republic sees two major problems facing this nation: the question of assimilation and immigration, and the question of foreign intervention. There is a simple Rooseveltian solution to that. It is time to create a foreign legion for the US armed forces, with compulsory national service, for migrants, especially those who cheer on wars of choice. Republics are often renowned for having foreign legions. Proponents point to models like France’s Foreign Legion or Ukraine’s international volunteer: France has Français par le sang versé, as does Ukraine, International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine, and are examples of states channelling external or non-native manpower into a structured, disciplined force that reinforces national purpose while addressing practical military needs.
But this isn’t just about addressing manpower issues, but rather a Rooseveltian idea of what it means to the identity of the republic. The idea of establishing an American foreign legion tied to compulsory service for particularly hawkish diaspora voices raises fundamental questions about citizenship and obligation. At its core, the argument rests on a perceived imbalance: individuals who advocate for American intervention abroad, especially in conflicts connected to their countries of origin, do so without bearing direct personal cost. A foreign legion, in this framing, becomes a mechanism to align advocacy with risk, ensuring that those who call for war are also willing to participate in it. This reflects a broader historical concern in republics about maintaining a tangible link between the citizen body and the burdens of military action.
In this framing, an American foreign legion would serve multiple functions simultaneously. It could provide a flexible pool of personnel for overseas operations, particularly in conflicts that fall short of existential wars but still require sustained engagement. It could also act as a filter or proving ground for migrants and diaspora communities, offering a tangible demonstration of loyalty and commitment to the United States. The argument extends further: those who publicly advocate for intervention in foreign conflicts, especially conflicts tied to their countries of origin, should bear some personal stake in the consequences. In that sense, compulsory service becomes not just a manpower solution but a way of aligning political expression with material responsibility.
American identity has historically been defined less by blood and more by civic principles and voluntary affiliation. But at its core, the argument rests on the idea that republics require a shared sense of sacrifice and ‘blood ties’ to sustain cohesion and legitimacy. Historically, military service has often functioned as a mechanism for forging such bonds, integrating diverse populations into a common narrative. Consider, once more, what Roosevelt had to say about common ties. ‘We must Americanize them in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at the relations between Church and State. We welcome the German or the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry.’
The comparison to other countries that have used military service as a means of integration suggests a belief that participation in national defence can accelerate assimilation and deepen civic identity. Critics might argue that some diaspora groups exert disproportionate influence in advocating for American involvement in conflicts tied to their homelands, potentially pulling the country into wars that do not align with broader national interests. A foreign legion, in this logic, would act as both a deterrent and an outlet: those most invested in such conflicts could contribute directly, while reducing pressure on the general population. Ultimately, while the concept of a foreign legion as a voluntary pathway for service and integration has historical precedent, extending it into a coercive or selectively applied system tied to political views would represent a profound shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. Roosevelt would agree. ‘The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.’
‘The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country’
The United States is a divided republic in its 250th year, and the primary sources of political differences are related to the questions of assimilation and immigration, and foreign intervention. This was predictable. ‘The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.’
There’s a simple bridging solution to that, which allows newly minted Americans to show they are here to assimilate and not to exploit, and allows the native borns to understand that those who come here are here to be Americans and not to carry grudges of their former lands. It is also eminently doable. If the state can track social media for immigration, the state should track social media for drafting to wars of choice. State power was previously also used for inoculations during covid, and can be used to create a mechanism to create a database of people ready for national service or a foreign legion. Republics need a social camaraderie that is possible by serving in wars. The Second World War was the greatest American nation-building process, which allowed Jewish and Italian Americans and others to serve alongside and assimilate. Current non-resident immigrants and diaspora should also serve towards that cause. It is a free market solution. And an easy test to differentiate between the good migrants who are here to truly assimilate and be Americans. An easy way to prove that would be compulsory service in the foreign legion of the armed forces of the US.
As Teddy Roosevelt said: ‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else.’
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
