America Was Built by Immigrants. What Does That Actually Prove?

When Slogans Replace Judgment, Part Two

“America was built by immigrants.”

It is one of the most familiar lines in American political debate. And it is true. Immigrants have helped build this country, fuel its industries, strengthen its communities, and enrich its culture.

But we must distinguish immigration from what America experienced under the Biden-Harris administration and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: a border crisis marked by extraordinary numbers of encounters, widespread unlawful crossings, and policies that fundamentally changed how the government managed migration.

These are not the same thing.

Celebrating immigrants who came through lawful pathways does not require defending unlawful entry, ineffective enforcement, or policies that fail to protect the public. America's immigrant heritage is worth celebrating, not treating as a blank check for government policy.

America recorded approximately 2.5 million encounters at the southwest border in fiscal year 2023, a record annual total at the time. Encounters are not the same as successful unlawful entries, but the scale of the crisis and the consequences of the administration's policy choices demanded serious scrutiny. It's expanded entry pathways and humanitarian parole policies also generated significant legal and political disputes. Where executive actions exceeded statutory authority, they deserved to be challenged. Where enforcement failed, the failures deserved examination.

Instead, the Biden-Harris administration weaponized America's goodwill against the American people. It invoked our identity as a nation of immigrants to defend policies that fueled a border crisis, then used accusations of racism and xenophobia to discredit those who challenged them. It turned compassion into a political weapon and patriotism into something to be ashamed of.

They took one of America's greatest virtues and used it to shield their policy failures from accountability.Americans were told that defending our borders meant betraying our values, that demanding enforcement meant harboring prejudice. This was a profound betrayal of public trust. A nation's compassion should never be exploited to excuse the government's failure to uphold its laws and protect its people.

Immigration policy has always evolved with national circumstances. From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the national-origins quota system of the 1920s and the reforms of 1965, America has repeatedly debated who may enter and under what conditions. Some earlier restrictions were rooted in racial prejudice. The lesson is not that every policy was right, but that immigration policy involves consequential choices that must be judged on their merits.

Nor can policy remain frozen in another era. Terrorism, hostile foreign governments, identity fraud, and evolving security threats require government to continually assess whether screening and enforcement remain adequate.

My parents immigrated legally to America from a developing country in the early 1960s. They came seeking opportunity, and their journey is part of why I believe in the American promise.

Yet there is something deeply troubling about policymakers celebrating immigrants' contributions while defending policies that blur the distinction between those who followed the law and those who entered unlawfully. My parents' journey was not simply about reaching America. It was about following the process this country established. When officials treat compliance as secondary, they diminish the significance of that choice and the sacrifices made by those who respected the rules.

Too often, we hear only one side of the ledger: the benefits, contributions, and assets. The costs, risks, and liabilities receive far less scrutiny. As someone who spent decades in corporate finance, I know that an honest accounting must consider both. The contributions of lawful immigrants should never become a rhetorical shield for policies that undermine the integrity of lawful immigration.

People come under different circumstances, including as refugees, family members, and workers. My parents' experience does not mean every immigrant must follow an identical path. But it reminds us that lawful immigration can be a powerful expression of faith in America.

What message does government send when people who follow the rules navigate lengthy processes while others bypass them? The desire to come to America does not, by itself, create an entitlement to enter, remain, or receive every benefit the country provides. Otherwise, compliance becomes a disadvantage rather than a principle worth upholding.

There is another question policymakers should have to answer: If someone is willing to break the law, circumvent established rules, or use false documents to advance their interests, why should we simply assume they will respect other laws when breaking them becomes convenient? This does not mean every person who violates immigration law will commit other violations. But ignoring demonstrated conduct when assessing risk is not sound judgment, particularly when public safety is at stake.

My parents faced difficult circumstances, too. They did not presume hardship entitled them to bypass the process or jump ahead of others waiting their turn. Why should their respect for the rules mean less than someone else's decision to disregard them?

Citizenship must mean something. Government has obligations to everyone under its jurisdiction, but its responsibilities to its own citizens are distinctive. Public safety and the integrity of our laws cannot become secondary considerations in the name of compassion.

That does not mean every case must have the same outcome. For some people who were living in America unlawfully before the Biden-Harris administration's dramatic policy changes, a measured alternative might be considered: a path to lawful residence without an automatic path to citizenship, subject to strict conditions. The original violation must be acknowledged, meaningful penalties imposed, and the violation preserved on the individual's record. Rigorous screening, demonstrated responsibility, and zero tolerance for further lawbreaking must be essential. Any subsequent violation of applicable law, including criminal, civil, traffic-related, or immigration law, should disqualify an applicant. Those who fail these standards should not qualify.

A second chance should be earned, not automatically granted. Accountability and a conditional opportunity to move forward are not mutually exclusive.

“America was built by immigrants” tells us something important about our past. It does not justify every immigration policy, excuse unlawful entry, or absolve officials of responsibility for their decisions. Those questions require evidence, judgment, and accountability, not slogans.

America was built by immigrants. Keeping America worthy of their hopes requires more than repeating that fact. It requires the wisdom to govern.