Blockwood is executive vice president of the Partnership for Public Service, adjunct professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration.
We are seeing increasing debate, court rulings and newly introduced legislation regarding the federal government’s responsibility to enforce immigration law. It is clear that to resolve swelling immigration issues, the White House, Congress and the states need to provide bipartisan commitment and leadership.
“Do not come.” Those are the words Vice President Kamala Harris said three years ago – clear, direct and delivered with underlying compassion to many would-be illegal immigrants along the southern border. Yet, these words have not been heeded, as if not said at all, with migrant arrivals and violent encounters with our border protection authorities rising to all-time highs. For many, this is not their maiden voyage, seriously signaling we are in deep water.
Migration, the movement of people from one country to another, shouldn’t be controversial. And, if managed appropriately it shouldn’t lead to a national crisis. In fact, immigration has long been a cherished part of shaping who we are as a nation. We are a nation founded on, and advanced by, a society of immigrants, who make up approximately 13 percent of the United States — home to more immigrants than any other country in the world.
The United States welcomes over a million people a year and naturalized almost 8 million in the last decade. But, roughly 10.5 million immigrants are unauthorized, and there is growing concern that this group doesn’t respect American traditions and customs, drains resources and services intended for citizens, takes jobs away from hard-working Americans, commits more crime and atrocities than those who were born here, present intelligence threats to our national security, and is part of a larger, sinister replacement theory.
Though not without flaws and hardship, by all accounts, we are a blessed nation with a strong-held belief to care for those unable to care for themselves. America represents a bastion of freedom and opportunity, but how can we sustain the American allure of promise, protect our people, and combat an open border, so we don’t lose the country we love?
Recognize our reach
The U.S. doesn’t receive nearly enough credit for the work it does overseas. We obligated more than $70 billion in foreign aid to more than 150 countries to primarily support economic development, humanitarian assistance, peace related activities and health. This is a substantial sum to spend abroad while nearly 40 million Americans struggle with poverty and our southern border has us over a barrel.
No, it’s not a competition to measure which country is the most generous, but recognition of our assistance to other nations would surely help alleviate the concern that America may not be living up to its humanitarian ethos or meeting its moral obligation.
Run a tight ship
Laws exist for a reason. The Department of Homeland Security, through component organizations — such as Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — plays an important role in keeping us safe and securing our border. We have an established visa application process, though perhaps in need of reform, to legally enter the United States, and we should reward those who use it rather than help those who undermine it.
We’re not a lawless nation. We must enforce our laws and hold accountable our government leaders who are failing or unwilling to do so. Our president and federal entities must address the rising immigration tsunami or expect that individual states or citizens will — potentially leading to infighting over federal and state rights and power.
Use an ‘all hands on deck’ approach
President Joe Biden said he would sign into law the “toughest and fairest” border reforms, recognizing we have an overwhelmed border amidst a crisis. Despite this pronouncement, the number of migrants illegally crossing continues to grow — in some cases by the thousands — every day. More (a whole of government approach) must be done to secure our border.
Let’s champion bipartisan efforts without fear of being labeled xenophobic or appearing to cede ground to one’s political base. Let’s unbundle unrelated issues in legislative proposals. Let’s not miss the opportunity for actual, meaningful reform because of bitterness, a partisan grudge or chance to show one side has been wrong on this issue all along.
It’s time to take a different tack and make way. Congress and the White House must work constructively to fund border security and immigration activities. We must lift any legislative or executive order restrictions, whether rationalized or real, regarding immigration enforcement. Limit and increase scrutiny for asylum seekers to thwart abuse of the system. Stop the antics of moving migrants around our country, which only shifts the problem elsewhere. Fund and equip law enforcement officials who are on board and ready to safeguard our national boundaries. Reinforce the border using traditional barriers coupled with advanced technology. Position the right leadership at agency, administration and state levels — leaders committed to solving the immigration issues battering our border.
Our country can and should offer legal pathways to citizenship, we can and should enforce our laws and impose consequences to those who try to circumvent them, and we can and should reinforce our commitment to keep U.S. citizens and communities safe. We must also safeguard our traditions while embracing our diversity as a nation — which together are what makes us strongest.
To help stem the tidal wave, let’s call for other nations to meet their responsibilities while we continue to be a role model by offering aid and technical assistance — but not at an unfair expense to Americans. Let’s use currently existing authorities to secure our border and pass additional bipartisan immigration legislation. We would be serving ourselves and our neighbors (adjacent and afar) well — providing the ballast we need, honoring America’s founding spirit, and protecting the American dream and the futures of our fellow countrymen.
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.