When New York Mayor Eric Adams addressed the Federation of Indian Associations (FIA) gala at Cipriani Wall Street on August 17, his words sounded celebratory but carried troubling implications. He suggested that immigrant groups should first identify with their country of origin before calling themselves American — Chinese American, Indian American, Polish American, and so on. To some, this may sound harmless, a token of multicultural pride. But to many others, it raises an uncomfortable question: at what point does celebrating one’s roots cross into promoting nationalism of one’s homeland — potentially at the expense of allegiance to the United States?

History teaches us that the dangers of divided national loyalty are neither theoretical nor trivial. Nations that fail to integrate immigrants under a shared civic identity often find themselves grappling with sectarian divisions, imported conflicts, and, in the worst cases, outright disintegration. America, a nation forged by immigrants, must take this challenge seriously if it is to preserve its unique democratic experiment.

Citizenship has always been more than a legal contract; it is a covenant of loyalty. When a person becomes an American citizen, they swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” There is no clause about placing one’s country of origin alongside the United States. The allegiance is singular, not hyphenated.

Yet in practice, many immigrant communities do carry with them not just cultural traditions — which enrich America — but also political nationalism and religious dogma that risk creating enclaves of foreign identity. The problem is not pride in one’s heritage; the problem is when that pride turns into active political nationalism, advocacy for foreign governments, or rigid adherence to imported religious ideologies that undermine the pluralism of American society.

History is replete with examples of what happens when immigrant groups — or minorities within a nation — allow imported nationalism or sectarian loyalty to override allegiance to their new homeland.

The Fall of the Roman Empire: Historians debate the causes of Rome’s collapse, but one recurring theme is the inability of the empire to fully integrate the diverse tribes and groups it absorbed. Instead of becoming “Romans first,” many maintained loyalty to their ancestral tribes or faiths. When barbarian groups such as the Visigoths settled within the empire, their primary allegiance remained tribal rather than imperial, ultimately contributing to Rome’s disintegration.

The Ottoman Empire’s Decline: The Ottoman Empire thrived for centuries on a system of “millets” — self-governing religious communities. While initially pragmatic, this arrangement institutionalized difference rather than forging unity. By the 19th century, imported nationalisms — Greek, Serbian, Armenian, Arab — flourished within Ottoman lands. Rather than seeing themselves as “Ottoman citizens,” many subjects identified primarily with their ethnic or religious nation. The result was the steady fragmentation of the empire.

Lebanon’s Civil War (1975–1990): Lebanon is a cautionary tale of sectarian identities overwhelming national identity. Imported ideologies and loyalties to external powers — whether Syrian, Palestinian, Iranian, or Western — destabilized the fragile balance of the Lebanese state. The inability to cultivate a shared national allegiance resulted in a devastating civil war that scarred the country for decades.

The Partition of India (1947): Even in the modern era, the pull of religion and nationalism across borders can rip nations apart. India’s independence movement succeeded in uniting diverse groups against colonial rule, but when religion and imported nationalism took precedence over a shared Indian identity, the result was partition — one of the bloodiest episodes of mass migration and communal violence in human history.

These examples highlight a common truth: when immigrants or minorities see themselves first and foremost as representatives of another nation or faith, they risk undermining the unity of their adopted homeland.

The United States has historically managed better than most nations at integrating immigrants into a shared civic identity. The idea of the “melting pot” — later refined into the “salad bowl” — was always about one essential principle: no matter where you come from, when you adopt America as your home, you are American first.

But recent decades have witnessed worrying trends. Political polarization, identity politics, and global migration have combined to challenge the old model of assimilation. Many immigrant communities maintain strong transnational ties, not only culturally but politically. For example, Chinese diaspora networks have been accused of promoting Beijing’s political interests, sometimes under pressure from the Chinese Communist Party. U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned of Chinese government attempts to co-opt diaspora organizations to advance Chinese state goals.

Indian diaspora groups have actively mobilized around Indian politics — fundraising for Indian political parties, staging demonstrations in U.S. cities for or against Indian policies, and sometimes carrying communal tensions (Hindu-Muslim, Sikh-Hindu) into American streets. At one point, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Modi, at a rally of Indians in America,  in Houston, in the presence of Trump, exhorted them to elect Trump as President. The world has not forgotten how his slogan “Abki baar Trump Sarkar” was a direct interference in the electoral process of the US.