Over the past few weeks, debates among conservative Americans on immigration have deepened divisions within our own ranks over appropriate policy responses. This past week, William Wolfe stated, “My boys all look like me. And I want my children to grow up in a country where they’re not minorities.” Similarly, Representative Andy Ogles declared on social media, “Muslims don’t belong in American society. Pluralism is a lie.”
The purpose of this article is to respond directly to these statements and to offer conservatives a principled framework for evaluating immigration policy. First, I will address Wolfe’s and Ogles’ remarks in context. Second, I will defend my core principle for American immigration policy: a nation cannot endure if the descendants of those who built it become a minority.
Maintaining Cultural Homogeny
In his opening statement at a local Republican event, William Wolfe opened with the premise that he doesn’t want his children to become minorities in their country. Wolfe’s brazen comments were met with much criticism, both from conservatives and liberals alike. We may have disagreements with fellow conservatives’ rhetoric on the hot-button issues of the day, such as Wolfe’s comments about American immigration policy. However, we must always evaluate the principles underlying what’s being said. Wolfe’s comments, although inflammatory, ring with profound helpfulness in understanding the immigration crisis in the United States. Desiring that your children not become minorities in their own country is neither racist nor improper. Regarding Wolfe’s comments, they would properly be considered racist if the proposed principle of American immigration policy should be considered by the amount of melanin in a person’s skin. However, because his intent is to restrict immigration to foreigners to protect us from the cost of cultural and political change in our nation, his statement properly aligns with our American ideals.
They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
The consequences that must result from a too unqualified admission of foreigners, to an equal participation in our civil, and political rights. The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family… In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to naturalization; but our situation is now changed.
These quotes from our founding fathers aren’t infallible but they are informative. In our days in school, we heard murmurs that the United States is a “melting pot.” However, when reading our founding fathers, we find that’s the opposite of our American heritage. Yes, the beauty of being an American is that it doesn’t require a particular ancestry or skin complexion but it does require assimilation of the values, traditions, and culture that have made our nation great. Immigration policy that merely sees fit that anyone may become an American because either diversity is a strength or the apparent positives of their economic production is absolutely asinine. The American experiment succeeded not because of the importation of foreigners but through the grit and determination of the American spirit regardless of ethnicity.
Islam and Immigration
The left quivered from Representative Andy Ogles’ remarks on Muslims and American immigration. A recent poll from the University of Maryland, found that there’s been a significant loss of support of Islam in the United States from people on both sides of the aisle. Therefore, as long as we continue accepting immigrants from Muslim countries, we will not have this issue resolved. Whether the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood shooting, Boston Marathon bombing, San Bernardino attack, Pulse nightclub shooting, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, New Orleans Bourbon Street truck attack and the several other Islamic terrorist attacks that have even occurred this week, the broader public’s questioning of Islam’s compatibility with Western civilization–including its core values of democracy, individual freedoms, tolerance, and separation of church and state–will not go away. If Islam is incompatible with the West, then what shall we do with immigration?
It must be said that supporting a ban on Muslim immigration isn’t necessarily unconstitutional. In 2017, Trump’s initial travel ban was met with much criticism by the left–both politically and legally. The plaintiffs in the 2018 case Trump v. Hawaii (2018) argued that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional based upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Chief Justice John Roberts responds bluntly, “[The] Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” (Chief Justice Roberts quoting from Fiallo v. Bell (1977) in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)). Now it would be fallacious to not mention that in Chief Justice Roberts opinion that Trump’s executive order wasn’t necessarily a Muslim ban. Rather, the executive order restricted immigration from seven countries, five being Muslim-majority. All that being said, there are complex legal ramifications with an outright Muslim ban within Supreme Court Precedent. Nonetheless, there are legal and clearly constitutional paths in achieving significant limitations of Muslim migration to the United States.
We may have our disagreements for the resolution of the immigration problem in the United States, but we must be unified on not ending up like Europe–where unchecked mass migration from Muslim-majority countries has led to failed integration, parallel societies, rising crime, no-go zones in some cities, jihadist terrorism threats, and deep cultural divisions that threaten their national identities and social cohesion.
Building an Enduring Nation
For this section, I will argue for my proposed principle for American immigration policy: a nation cannot endure if the descendants of those who built it become a minority. There are two objections to this principle that I must answer. First, America is a nation of immigrants. Although a statement that is evidently true, it doesn’t ensure national stability, especially in our tumultuous times. Thus, before we proceed with immigration rates of the 1880s and 1900s, we must recall two aspects of the history of immigration in the United States: where immigrants came from and where the immigrants came to. The overwhelming majority of immigrants between the 1880s and 1900s were coming from Western nations. The ethnic similarities wasn’t what made some of our great-great grandparents phenomenal immigrant prospects but the similar Western culture–by the influence of Christianity throughout the Old Roman Empire–they were coming from. Therefore, the current affairs of the United States immigration policy cannot apply the same permissive standards from that era, as today’s waves often originate from non-Western cultures lacking that shared Christian heritage (albeit Central and South America), leading to greater challenges in assimilation and potential threats to our foundational values and social cohesion.
Second, America is a hospitable nation. This objection would be most likely from Evangelical conservatives, who have a serious desire to see foreigners trust in the true Religion. Pastor John Piper recently tweeted Leviticus 19:34, “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe this to be true. Now, John Piper wasn’t necessarily from my knowledge making a political point, but people on both sides of the immigration issue took it this way. Anyways, I do want to interact with those who would say that the biblical principle in Leviticus 19:34 requires the United States to allow immigration. There are two grave errors in this exegesis. Firstly, this interpretation assumes continuity with Israel and the United States. The nation of Israel was in a covenant with God in the Old Testament, the United States is not. Secondly, this interpretation falsely assumes the application of the passage. Christians have the responsibility to love the foreigner in their land, but nations aren’t required to admit that foreigner into the land.
What am I not saying
I don’t want anybody misunderstanding me in this article. We shouldn’t base our immigration policy upon ethnic backgrounds, that would be despicable. Even though our founding fathers weren’t unanimously orthodox Christians, they were seemingly united on the corruptness of the human condition.
Men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and Religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government, and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.
We can truly say that the doctrine of original sin is canonized in the American heritage. Therefore, we must not become too lackadaisical in our own introspection–both individually and collectively as conservatives. We must not base our immigration policy merely upon the ethnicity of a foreigner. I am also not saying that we shouldn’t ever accept immigrants outside of Western countries. Rather, the key lies in prioritizing foreigners who arrive with a compatible moral and cultural framework that aligns with the Judeo-Christian virtues our Founders assumed were essential for sustaining self-government and restraining human depravity. Without that shared moral foundation, the checks and balances built into our system risk becoming insufficient against unchecked passions and division—leading to the very instability the Founders warned against and what I believe we are currently experiencing. In short, successful immigration policy should focus on cultural compatibility and moral alignment, not race, to preserve the republic they designed for a “moral and religious people.”
What am I saying
In this concluding section, I want to be explicit about the practical implications of my proposed principle for American immigration policy: a nation cannot endure if the descendants of those who built it become a minority. This principle demands decisive action to prevent rapid demographic and cultural discontinuity.
The first essential step is a complete moratorium on new immigration admissions to the United States—both legal and illegal inflows—for an indefinite but substantial period. I advocate this for two primary reasons:
- Prioritizing opportunities for natural-born Americans: The nation’s foremost duty is to its existing citizens and their descendants. A sustained pause would preserve jobs, wages, housing, and social resources for those already here, especially amid recent economic pressures and record-high foreign-born population levels (now exceeding 15% of the total U.S. population, per recent estimates). Mass immigration has strained these systems, and a halt would allow time to address those burdens.
- Reversing the effects of unchecked inflows: The surge in both legal admissions and illegal entries over the past several years—contributing to an estimated 14 million unauthorized immigrants as of 2023, with further growth since—requires firm corrective measures. A moratorium would enforce border security rigorously, facilitate deportations where appropriate, and reduce the immediate pressures that hinder genuine assimilation.
The second step is to make this moratorium time-bound and purposeful. Rather than permanent long-term restriction on immigration, it should last long enough—perhaps a decade or more, depending on conditions in order for Americans to reform the system comprehensively. During this period, we can:
- Strengthen vetting and assimilation requirements for any future legal pathways.
- Prioritize immigrants who demonstrate cultural and moral compatibility with America’s heritage and republican values.
- Build policies that truly promote human flourishing, ensuring that renewed immigration serves the national interest rather than undermining it.
This approach is not xenophobic; it is prudent stewardship in our time. By temporarily closing the door, we protect the shared civic fabric that sustains self-government. Once stability is restored and reforms are in place, controlled, merit and values-based immigration may resume in a way that strengthens—rather than dilutes—the nation our forebears built.
Conservatives must embrace this framework with resolve. The alternative—endless, unassimilated influx—is not sustainable. Let us secure the republic now so that future generations inherit the America they deserve.
