(RNS) As immigration moves center stage ahead of the November elections, many Americans will fixate on the word “illegal.”

It’s a safe word — who, after all, would vote for illegality? “Illegal” presents a visceral issue as high-minded civic principle. But it’s code, like “states’ rights” during the civil rights era, or accusations of “socialism” and “communism” thrown at anyone who advocated restraint on the greedy.

The reality, of course, is that we haven’t suddenly become a nation of legal scholars. If civic principles were at stake, we would be quoting Emma Lazarus’ words (“Give me your tired, your poor …”) posted next to the Statue of Liberty.

No, Americans resort to code when their guts are churning but they are embarrassed by their emotions, or when they want to attack without exposing themselves to risk. Code is for cowards.

Let’s be honest. This debate is really about the “browning” of America. A nation whose self-perception has been white and European now finds itself truly the “melting pot” it always claimed to be.

In New York City, where I live, whites are now officially a minority. The same is true in large swaths of the South and Southwest and in many Northern cities. Non-whites are the fastest growing portion of the U.S. population. It’s an historic watershed.

So, let’s talk about it.

Let’s discuss immigration — the opening or closing of America’s borders to anyone not already here. Let’s discuss the “browning” of America. Let’s talk about whether national identity or national interest is at risk when whites are no longer the majority.

We don’t need phony legal niceties. No code words. No painting of opponents as soft on law or Gestapo tactics.

Let’s just name it. Without necessarily being filled with racial hatred, many whites wonder what will happen to a nation dominated by people other than themselves. Many non-whites wonder if whites will ever just accept them as people, not the dreaded “other.”

Is something fundamental lost or gained when non-whites filter into American life at all levels? When non-white participation becomes the dominant fact, what else needs to change? Or not change? Can we shift our national profile without a violent upheaval, as the English and French are wondering?

That discussion of race and immigration is long overdue. We’ve been avoiding it for decades. Despite the shrieking of candidates and commentators, I sense we are ready for it. Not because race and immigration have suddenly imperiled the nation, but because fundamental ideals are at stake, and people with legitimate concerns are losing their voice in the shouting.

Let’s ask New Yorkers if life has gotten worse as the racial balance has shifted. That isn’t what I see in living here. But let’s talk about it.

Let’s ask Arizonans if being a conduit for illegal immigrants has undermined their state. Some might legitimately believe it has. That’s worth hearing.

Let’s ask every vulnerable minority in America — from persons with disabilities to workers older than 55 to the obese — if they want a nation that can target any segment for repression.

Let’s talk about who we are and what we want our national experiment in democracy to be.

This is too important to be left to politicians and talking heads. We have the tools for such a debate — social media, church basements, family meals. It’s in our best interests to consider what kind of nation we are, and what kind of nation we want to be.

(Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the author of “Just Wondering, Jesus” and founder of the Church Wellness Project. His website is http://www.morningwalkmedia.com. Follow Tom on Twitter (at)tomehrich.)