Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What Immigration Debates Reveal About National Confidence

Opinion

Businesspeople walking in line across world map, painted on asphalt

America's immigration debate reflects a deeper question: Does America still believe in itself? A historical look at immigration, assimilation, and American identity.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

America has spent 250 years arguing about immigrants.

But beneath the arguments about visas, walls, asylum claims, deportations, and border security lies a more uncomfortable question:


How confident are Americans in America?

Because nations that believe in themselves rarely fear newcomers.

Nations that doubt themselves almost always do.

At its deepest level, the immigration debate is not really about borders. It is about confidence.

History offers a revealing pattern.

The greatest civilizations were rarely built by people who believed their culture was too fragile to absorb outsiders. They succeeded because they were confident enough to attract, incorporate, and transform newcomers into stakeholders in a larger national project.

Consider Rome.

Rome did not become the dominant power of the ancient world simply because it had disciplined legions and impressive engineering. Rome possessed something even more powerful: a remarkable ability to turn outsiders into Romans.

Unlike many ancient societies that tightly guarded membership, Rome gradually extended rights, opportunities, military service, and eventually citizenship to conquered peoples and foreigners throughout the empire.

Rome understood a fundamental truth: a civilization becomes stronger when talented outsiders want to join it.

Its genius was not merely conquest. It was assimilation.

Centuries later, Britain experienced a similar dynamic.

Following World War II, Britain faced labor shortages and economic challenges. Newcomers from the Caribbean, South Asia, Africa, and elsewhere arrived to help rebuild the country. They staffed hospitals, drove buses, opened businesses, served in government, and contributed to every aspect of British society.

The transition was not always smooth. There were tensions, fears, and political battles. Yet over time, many descendants of those once viewed as outsiders became physicians, judges, entrepreneurs, military officers, members of Parliament, and even prime ministers.

The lesson is not that immigration is easy.

The lesson is that nations frequently mistake the discomfort of change for evidence of decline.

America should understand this better than any country on Earth.

For more than two centuries, Americans have repeatedly underestimated immigrants.

The Irish were considered too Catholic and too poor. The Italians were supposedly too foreign and too unwilling to assimilate. Jews, Chinese immigrants, Eastern Europeans, Greeks, and countless others were all accused of being fundamentally incompatible with American life.

The objections changed little. Only the nationality changed.

Then something predictable happened. The immigrants settled. Their children thrived. Their grandchildren became Americans in every meaningful sense of the word.

They became mayors, governors, military officers, teachers, scientists, business leaders, judges, and members of Congress. Then the country forgot the original predictions.

History has repeated this cycle so often that it is difficult to understand why anyone still believes the latest version.

That does not mean borders do not matter.

They do.

A serious nation must know who enters, enforce its laws, remove genuine threats, and maintain public confidence in the immigration system.

Border security is important.

But it is possible to support secure borders while also recognizing that immigration itself is not a sign of national weakness.

In fact, the opposite may be true.

The countries that attract ambitious people from around the world are often the countries others most want to join.

Millions of people do not uproot their lives, leave family behind, and take enormous risks to move to nations they believe are failing.

They come because they:

  • see opportunity,
  • believe in the future, and
  • think the destination country offers something worth pursuing.

The paradox is that immigration restriction is often presented as an expression of patriotism. Yet many arguments against immigration rest on a surprisingly pessimistic view of America.

They assume American culture is too weak to assimilate newcomers. They assume American institutions are too fragile to withstand change. They assume American identity is so delicate that it cannot survive contact with people born somewhere else.

That is not confidence. It is anxiety.

At its best, America has never defined itself primarily by ancestry.

It has defined itself by a set of ideas: liberty, opportunity, constitutional government, individual responsibility, and the belief that people from vastly different backgrounds can become part of a shared national story.

Being American is not automatic. It must be learned. But it can be learned.

That is why generation after generation of immigrants has ultimately become part of the American fabric.

As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, the most important immigration question may not be whether immigrants believe in America. Clearly, millions still do.

The more important question is whether Americans still believe in America. Because confident nations absorb newcomers.

Nations that fear newcomers often reveal something deeper: not uncertainty about immigration, but uncertainty about themselves.


Richard T. Herman is the founder of Herman Legal Group, a nationally recognized immigration law firm that has represented immigrants, entrepreneurs, innovators, investors, researchers, physicians, executives, and their families for more than 30 years. He is widely known for helping immigrant founders, startup leaders, and highly skilled professionals navigate complex U.S. immigration pathways while pursuing the American Dream. He is also a co-author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less