The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“Stricter immigration policy doesn’t protect the American economy or support the future of the country. The U.S. is a country founded on the migration of people from around the world, which is why it’s called a “melting pot” of different cultures, all considering themselves American. Immigration is a divisive issue, but some politicians from different parties can agree over immigration policy. For example, the Dignity Act, which provides legal status for some undocumented immigrants, received bipartisan support. But President Donald Trump’s administration is moving away from the concept that has defined America and is polarizing stances toward immigration policy.
“Though he claims to be protecting Americans from immigrants involved in gangs and crime, Trump’s crackdown on immigration is altering a value that is so vital to the nation; the U.S. is a country made up of immigrants, and without them, diversity shrinks, humanitarianism falters and the U.S. loses its founding principle of immigration. Moderate immigration policy — like those that combine border security with expanded pathways to legal status — should be an issue that both Republicans and Democrats can agree upon because the country was built on the relocation of these people. But as a whole, immigration is not a bipartisan issue.
“Proponents of strict immigration policy, such as Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, argue that immigrants take jobs away from Americans, and because of this, supporting immigration is anti-American. But this isn’t the case. In fact, immigrants foster economic growth in the U.S. by filling gaps in the labor force without taking jobs from citizens. They are expected to boost real gross domestic product by 2 percent within the next decade. Without immigrants, the American job market would fall apart.” — Time to Get Bipartisan about Immigration, Anna Sperry, The Michigan Daily, 10/5/25 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: A stricter immigration policy actually would protect the economy and support our future. The American economy of the 1960s—before mass immigration took off—was a far better economy than what we have today. Most notably, there was an abundance of jobs paying good wages, enough for people to buy homes and enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. That economy has faded, and mass immigration flooding labor markets is one of the reasons.
Since the Sixties wage levels, particularly for working-class Americans, have stagnated. More workers mean lower wages for workers. That’s simply the economic law of supply and demand. Also, the mass importation foreign tech workers on visas has harmed the employment prospects and wages of Americans in tech fields. With respect to housing, the huge influx of immigrants has pushed up the cost of housing. Once again—supply and demand.
Anna Sperry claims that Americans and immigrants don’t complete with one another in the job market. This notion of immigrants just taking jobs that Americans won’t do is false. According to government data, native-born Americans are the majority of workers in almost every occupation. They are competing with immigrants.
Mass immigration also is harming the economy by creating large voting blocs of people who do not appreciate the principles of free enterprise which have enabled us to prosper. An outstanding example was the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the mayor of New York City. The radical policies he proposes don’t bode well for city’s economy. Foreign-born voters were Mamdani’s strongest base of support. This kind of “diversity” doesn’t enrich us in any way.
America is not a “country of immigrants.” The foreign-born are only around 15 percent of the population. Nor was America built by immigrants, i.e., people who moved from one built country to another. America was built by settlers who created a country from scratch. And finally, the U.S. was not founded “on the principle of immigration.” Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention immigration as a founding principle.
Immigration can benefit our country within reasonable limits matched to our national interest. What we have today serves the vested interests of businesses seeking cheap labor, politicians seeking cheap votes, and “humanitarians” who wallow in cheap sentiments.