Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.
Immigrants have long played an essential role in furthering the American Dream. They have shaped our democracy – eight members of the Constitutional Convention were born outside of the United States. They have developed, refined and spread transformative technologies – you can thank a Scotsman, Alexander Graham Bell, for the telephone. And, they have held us accountable to our ideals by exposing greed and corruption – Jacob Riis, a Dane, and Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, born and raised in Ireland, are responsible for a lot of “good trouble.”
Countless other examples are out there – and they all speak to the central role immigrants play in improving and transforming America. Despite those case studies having been shared and celebrated on numerous occasions, they deserve to be repeated more frequently and more loudly – especially because America’s future as an innovative, inclusive and democratic country hinges on continuing to welcome individuals from around the world.
In the Age of AI, the American Dream must undergo yet another evolution, focusing less on individual success and financial posterity and more on our collective well-being and resilience. That may sound like a bunch of buzzwords, but there’s a whole lot of substance behind the idea of resilience.
A resilient America learns from its mistakes. By way of example, instead of sitting on our hills and allowing social media platforms to wreak havoc on our elections, on our children and on our culture, a resilient America will coordinate and collaborate to direct emerging technologies toward the public interest. A resilient America methodically plans for natural disasters and prepares every Joe and Jane, Jack and Jill, José and Julia for worst-case situations. And, a resilient America updates its democratic institutions, norms and values to align with the times and to adjust to new challenges.
Realizing this new American Dream will be far easier if Congress reaches a compromise to welcome those who share that vision — subject to going through a fair and efficient naturalization process. As made clear by current debates related to migrants attempting to enter the U.S. via our southern border, the status quo is ill-suited to a world in which environmental shifts and technological disruptions will inevitably lead to more immigration. The need to regulate and understand artificial intelligence is a great example — this novel technology poses pros and cons that transcend borders and require analysis from a broad range of experts. If America tries to take on these challenges alone, there’s a good chance that we will miss out on the best policies and practices. If we instead aim to become a global hub for the brightest thinkers and tinkerers in this field, then we will have much better odds of detecting risks and dispersing benefits.
Thankfully, President Joe Biden’s administration has expressed an intent to recruit and retain AI experts from around the world. His executive order on AI specifically addressed reforms that would make it easier for researchers and developers to come to the United States. In practice, though, other planned policies may hinder that goal. As reported by Bloomberg, proposed changes to the H-1B visa program may contradict Biden's efforts to create an international AI talent pipeline. As it stands now, the regulation would rely on a narrow definition of "speciality occupation" to decide who may qualify for expedited entry into the country. This definition would not include individuals with a general degree such as engineering. The proposal should be scrapped or amended. Now’s not the time for drawing arbitrary lines that diminish our collective capacity to solve major problems.
From AI to whatever challenges lie ahead, a more resilient America will be much easier to achieve if we can tap into the world’s diversity of perspectives and expertise. This version of the American Dream is one that should transcend political lines and unite us all around a future in which more people have confidence in our institutions, our communities and our collective ability to withstand an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable world.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.