Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Protestors on one side of a caution tape line and people in mis-matching military gear on the other side.

Protesters clash with law enforcement after a federal agent shot and killed Alex Pretti on January 24, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Arthur Maiorella/Anadolu/Getty Images

Single Mothers Lost Months of Income Hiding From Ice — and Now Can’t Afford To Renew Immigration Papers

It was a frigid January morning in Minneapolis. Alexa quietly stepped outside her apartment to heat her car for her baby, who was waiting inside in her crib.

They immediately spotted her.

Keep ReadingShow less
Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

In its recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, a divided Supreme Court approved an expansive use of presidential power that upsets the Constitutional balance between Congress and the President. The Court approved the President’s summary dismissal of agency leaders (in this case, commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission), notwithstanding a statute signed by a former President and the Court's own precedent specifically forbidding such dismissals. This decision will further politicize and weaponize much of our federal government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions
man holding his hands on open book
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

How Are Religions Recognized in the U.S. Military?

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less