“IT’STIMETOMAKECIVICSGREATAGAIN” byLouiseDubè&ShawnHealy
“WE NEED TO RETURN TO RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING.”
Minnesota Speaker of the House Lisa Demuth discusses her work to confront the fiscal challenges facing her state.
SECURITY, STABILITY, AND A SMARTER
Immigration Debate
Leslie Sanchez examines what Latino voters want.
Plus: A conversation with Pete Stauber about security along America’s Northern Border.
And: Stan Veuger explains why Trump’s Gold Card will likely not generate much revenue.
Trump supporters Alfonso and María Isabel Ramirez, with their sons Alex and Andy at their home in Glendale, Arizona in January.
Connecting America to More Opportunity
4 It’s Time to Make Civics Great Again By Louise Dubè & Shawn Healy
To the Founders, civics education was critical to our experiment in freedom. Unfortunately, after a century of special interests and cultural conflict, civics has been relegated to the periphery in our schools.
6 To Improve Education in America, Reduce Washington’s Role
By Neal McCluskey
There is no compelling reason the U.S. Department of Education, and the almost $2.8 billion it takes just to pay its nearly 4,200 employees, should continue.
Cover Story
8 Security, Stability, and a Smarter Immigration Debate
By Leslie Sanchez
Recent polling data reveal a growing and nuanced perspective among American voters — especially Hispanic voters in Texas — toward immigration policy and border security.
11 Securing the Northern Border
A conversation with Pete Stauber
The Minnesota Congressman discusses his work as a member of the Northern Border Caucus and the effort he is leading to shore up security along the 5,525 mile border between the U.S. and Canada.
15 Trump’s Gold Card Will Likely Not Generate Much Revenue
By Stan Veuger
While the gold card would add a much-needed albeit very expensive path to residency, America would need 2,000 buyers per year to hit $10 billion — less than 1 percent of our budget deficit.
Volume 59, Number 2
The Scale and Impact of Contemporary Immigration
By Steven A. Camarota
At the start of 2025, the total legal and illegal immigrant population, or “foreign born” in Census Bureau parlance, is higher now than at any time in our history.
19 The High Cost of “Sanctuary”
By Daniel Di Martino
More than one in three Americans live in a state or city that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement by the federal government.
Debate -- “Should the U.S. Maintain Birthright Citizenship?”
20 Yes, Birthright Citizenship Remains Essential for the United States
By Michael Fix
One of the most troubling consequences of repealing birthright citizenship would be the creation of a stateless underclass within U.S. borders.
21 No, it is a Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
By Edward J. Erler
Contrary to learned opinion, repealing birthright citizenship does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be done by using section five of the 14th Amendment
THE RIPON SOCIETY
HONORARY CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
U.S. Senators:
Shelley Moore Capito - Senate Co-Chair
Todd Young - Senate Co-Chair
Marsha Blackburn
Bill Cassidy, M.D.
Susan M. Collins
John Curtis
Steve Daines
Joni Ernst
Deb Fischer
John Hoeven
Jerry Moran
Mike Rounds
Thom Tillis
Roger Wicker
U.S. Representatives:
Frank Lucas - House Co-Chair
August Pfluger - House Co-Chair
Stephanie Bice - House Co-Chair
Mark Amodei
Jodey Arrington
Don Bacon
Troy Balderson
Andy Barr
Mike Bost
Rob Bresnahan
Vern Buchanan
Ken Calvert
Kat Cammack
Mike Carey
Buddy Carter
Juan Ciscomani
Tom Cole
Jake Ellzey
Tom Emmer
Ron Estes
Gabe Evans
Randy Feenstra
Brian Fitzpatrick
Scott Franklin
Andrew Garbarino
Tony Gonzales
Sam Graves
Pat Harrigan
Kevin Hern
French Hill
Ashley Hinson
Bill Huizenga
Dusty Johnson
Dave Joyce
John Joyce, M.D.
Mike Kelly
Jen Kiggans
Kevin Kiley
Young Kim
Darin LaHood
Bob Latta
Laurel Lee
Julia Letlow
Celeste Maloy
Brian Mast
Michael McCaul
Carol Miller
John Moolenaar
Blake Moore
Greg Murphy, M.D.
Dan Newhouse
Jay Obernolte
Guy Reschenthaler
Michael Rulli
María Elvira Salazar
Steve Scalise
Pete Sessions
Adrian Smith
Jason Smith
Lloyd Smucker
Pete Stauber
Bryan Steil
Glenn “GT” Thompson
Mike Turner
David Valadao
Ann Wagner
Steve Womack
Rudy Yakym
In this edition
With border crossings at their lowest level in decades and stories coming in from around the country of immigrants being justly — and unjustly — detained, the latest edition of The Ripon Forum examines the federal effort to strengthen border security in the United States, and why the American people believe the government should be both tough and compassionate in its approach.
“Since 2022, public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of tougher enforcement,” writes veteran political strategist Leslie Sanchez in the cover essay for this latest edition. “Yet support for a compassionate resolution for long-term undocumented residents also remains intact. This dual result — favoring law and order with a pragmatic eye toward reform — reflects not only national sentiment, but also kitchen-table concerns, particularly among the many working-class Latino voters who crossed over to back Trump.”
Sanchez — who served as director of the White House Initiative on Hispanic Education under former President George W. Bush — counsels Republicans in Congress to lead with security in their push for immigration reform, but advises them to avoid overreaching, as well. “Americans support enforcement — not extremism,” Sanchez writes. “Proposals like cutting funding to sanctuary cities or freezing all grants of asylum have less support. Policies rooted in justice, not merely punishment, are more politically sustainable.”
One Republican who is trying to strike that balance is Pete Stauber. Stauber represents the 8th District of Minnesota in the U.S. House. A former police officer, he is a member of the Northern Border Caucus, where he is working to shore up security along the 5,525 mile border between the United States and Canada. “America was built on legal immigration,” Stauber states in a conversation with the Forum. “There is a legal way to enter our country, and we invite people that want to live, work, play, and recreate in the United States of America and raise families. But there’s a legal way to do it. You do not enter illegally. You will be removed.”
In another essay examining the issue of immigration in the United States, Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute shines a light on the President’s proposal to establish a golden visa for high wealth immigrants and concludes it will likely not bring in the amount of revenue the President hopes. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies looks at the fact that there are now more individuals who were born in a foreign country living in America than ever before and the economic impact that is having on our country. Daniel Di Martino of the Manhattan Institute examines the history of sanctuary jurisdictions in the U.S., and the cost these jurisdictions are placing on America, both economically and in terms of public safety. In a debate over another newly contentious element of U.S. immigration policy, Michael Fix of the Migration Policy Institute argues that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the Constitution that should be maintained, while Edward J. Erler of the Claremont Institute makes the case that this right is not enshrined in the Constitution and should be abolished.
In an essay focused on what young people are being taught in schools, Louise Dubè and Shawn Healy of iCivics write about the importance of civics education in the United States and why it will help strengthen our democracy at a time when our democratic principles are being challenged as never before. In another essay focused on how young people are being taught, Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute explains why it is time to reduce the federal role and return responsibility over education to the states.
And in the latest Ripon Profile, Lisa Demuth discusses her new job as Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives and how she plans to confront the fiscal challenges facing her state.
As always, we hope you enjoy this edition of The Ripon Forum, and encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments you may have.
Lou Zickar Editor of
The Ripon Forum
louzickar@riponsociety.org
It’s Time to Make Civics Great Again
by LOUISE DUBÈ & SHAWN HEALY
The Founders would be appropriately bewildered by many facets of modern life in year 250 of the American experiment, but they’d probably be downright shocked by how far we have let our approach to educating young people stray from their original vision.
They believed unequivocally that the point of education in America should be to impart knowledge to young people that would help them be responsible citizens, contributing members of their communities, and ultimately, defenders of constitutional democracy. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison extolled civic learning as a bulwark against tyranny. And President George Washington, in his final Annual Address to Congress in 1796, said that the “education of our Youth in the science of Government” would prepare them to be “future guardians of the liberties of the Country.”
state, New Hampshire, dedicates instructional time for civics in grades K-5. Our current annual national investment in civics equates to less than 50 cents per student .
The consequences of going against the Founders’ wishes are clear.
To the Founders, education with civics at the center was nothing less than a pillar of our experiment in human freedom.
To the Founders, education with civics at the center was nothing less than a pillar of our experiment in human freedom. Unfortunately, after a century-long march of special interests and cultural conflict, civics has been relegated to the periphery. The early actions of the Trump Administration indicate that we have a window of opportunity to put things back on track and return civics to the center, as the Founders intended.
The Hollowing Out of Civics
Today, civics is a full-year high school course in only seven states . A mere five states require a onesemester middle school civics course, and only one
The most recent available data shows that less than a quarter (22 percent) of 8th graders demonstrated proficiency in civics — the first decline in nearly 25 years. Young Americans are disengaging from our democratic systems at alarming rates . Trust in all types of institutions has cratered.
All of these trends are being exacerbated by AI and other technologies, which are presenting us with a fundamental test of human agency in a country whose constitutional democracy was designed to maximize it under the rule of law. Therefore, it becomes that much more important to leverage civic education to help young people achieve an ironclad understanding of their liberties and build the communication, collaboration, and critical thinking skills to navigate citizenship and the economy.
Bringing Civics Back to the Center
Our journey to bring civics back to the center of education starts with acknowledging that huge swaths of the public – across generations and political persuasions – support more high-quality civic education. A large study from the University of Southern California Dornsife Center shows 70 percent of American adults across the political spectrum support more civic education. Another recent report
highlights how over 90 percent of young people believe that everyone should have access to civic education, but few opportunities exist in or out of school.
Americans want this, and we can deliver it to them in the following ways:
Celebrate the Constitution : Few things seem to bring Americans together these days, but the Founders’ words and the Constitution are incredible unifiers. Recent research from the Cato Institute highlights how an overwhelming majority of Americans (94 percent) believe that the Constitution is at least somewhat important for protecting their liberty, including 56 percent who believe it is extremely important. The most popular of the enumerated rights in the Constitution was equal protection under the law (77 percent).
Support State and Local Civics : Changes by the Trump Administration will drive even more power to the states, particularly relating to education, and this is where we can have the greatest impact bringing civics back to the center. Utah
Governor Spencer Cox (R) set the example when he recently signed a bipartisan bill to add a social studies requirement to Utah’s high school curriculum with a strong focus on mastering primary source documents and learning civics through policy analysis, governmental systems, civic engagement, or junior ROTC. Cox called the legislation one of the “most important bills of the 2025 legislative session.”
Lift Up Civic Educators: Without good social studies and civics teachers, we cannot deliver quality civic education, period. America’s civic educators, from the classroom to libraries and community clubs like 4H, are part of a legacy of defending our constitutional democracy that goes back to the founding. We simply must find a way to support social studies teachers, including by bringing them together more effectively with parents, improving their civics content knowledge, and helping them provide more engaging methods for students to learn civics.
There is no more important calling on the road ahead than to return civics to the center of our lives and the way we educate our children.
Unfortunately, after a century-long march of special interests and cultural conflict, civics has been relegated to the periphery.
More than 170 other bills impacting civic education have also been introduced in 41 states this year.
As always, we’re reminded of a quote from iCivics’ founder, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “We pay a price when we deprive children of the exposure to the values, principles, and education they need to make them good citizens.” Our only edit would be to have this quote apply to all people, and our call to action is civics for all, one community at a time. RF
Louise Dubè is the CEO of iCivics. Shawn Healy is iCivics’ Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer and directs CivxNow.org, a coalition of more than 370 organizations from across the viewpoint spectrum working to advance civic education policy.
Louise Dubè Shawn Healy
To Improve Education in America, Reduce Washington’s Role
by NEAL MCCLUSKEY
For most of the country’s history, the federal government had almost no role in education. The U.S. Department of Education – the locus of current federal intervention – is less than 50 years old, having been created in 1979.
In the long time that Washington largely obeyed the Constitution and stayed out of education, the country became the world’s preeminent economy, attracted immigrants from all corners of the globe, won multiple wars, and sent human beings into space. Given all that, there is no compelling reason to believe we need federal education intervention, much less a cabinet level education department.
Ideally, the federal government would completely exit education, with the exception of civil rights enforcement and providing education funding to families in the District of Columbia, the military, and on Indian reservations. Those are all that the Constitution –which gives the feds only specific, enumerated power – permits.
They are also all that experience supports. The federal role in ending forced racial school segregation in many states was necessary and appropriate. So has been supplying school choice in Washington, DC, through the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Other than those things, there is not much to be impressed by.
called for all students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014. By 2015, only 40 percent of 4th graders and 33 percent of 8th graders were proficient in math, and only 36 percent and 35 percent, respectively, in reading. The federal government took unconstitutional control of American education and fell miles short of its own goal. Of course, test scores do not capture all, or likely even most, of what people want from education, including inculcating creative thinking, character development, and more.
For most of the country’s history, the federal government had almost no role in education.
In the time the Department of Education has existed, while scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have gone up for some groups, especially in math, they have stagnated overall. And gains likely have nothing to do with the feds: between 1980 and 2024, real U.S. gross domestic product per-person rose from roughly $32,000 to about $68,500. Richer people tend to do better academically.
But we should not just look at trends. Federal policy made standardized test scores the end-all-and-be-all of education under the No Child Left Behind Act, which
Federal performance in higher education, where it focuses on aid to students in the form of grants, loans, and work-study, might be even worse than K-12. First, it has been shown repeatedly that federal student loans fuel college price inflation, with a recent Federal Reserve study finding that for every dollar increase in subsidized federal student loans, colleges raise their prices 60 cents. Meanwhile, paying for people to go to college spurs the demand for often hollow but expensive degrees, powering a credential treadmill that forces people to get higher and higher degrees just to stay in one labor marketplace.
Setting aside the unintended consequences of the programs, the Department of Education has proven itself an incompetent lender. Despite being given extra time to get it done, the Department last year failed to simplify the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA), the gateway to the federal aid that is baked into college prices. It resulted in a payment nightmare for students and schools alike. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. In 2022, the GAO reported that the Department had long failed to keep accurate data on borrowers’ repayments, a basic competency.
Washington should get out of education, which would, of course, include shuttering the Department of Education. But even if the feds do not exit the classroom,
Neal McCluskey
the Department – which was created at the behest of the nation’s largest teachers’ union, the National Education Association – should be eliminated.
If Congress chooses to keep most or all federal education programs and funding streams, the Department should be dismantled roughly as outlined in the recent bill from Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), which does sensible things like move student aid to the Treasury Department, where finance is their bread and butter, and Indian education to the Department of the Interior, where the Bureau of Indian Affairs is housed. The work of the Office of Civil Rights would go to the Department of Justice, where it has always belonged.
Education Department runs and block grant big sums, such as the roughly $18 billion sent to states through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and $14 billion through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Federal performance in higher education, where it focuses on aid to students in the form of grants, loans, and work-study, might be even worse than K-12.
There is no compelling reason the U.S. Department of Education, and the almost $2.8 billion it takes just to pay its nearly 4,200 employees, should continue. The country has spent most of its life without one, federal programs have been ineffective at best and damaging at worst, and the Department itself has proven incompetent at even basic functions.
It is time for it to go.
The Rounds bill would also block grant a lot of money to states. It would certainly be more efficient to end the many small, discretionary grant programs the
RF
Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.
Fighting the World's Toughest Diseases
AMGEN IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE RIPON SOCIETY.
Amgen harnesses biology and technology to make people's lives easier, fuller, and longer. We draw upon our deep knowledge of science to push beyond what's known today. We are one of the world's leading independent biotech companies - fighting the toughest diseases and helping millions of people globally. For more info, visit www.amgen.com.
SECURITY, STABILITY, AND A SMARTER Immigration Debate
by LESLIE SANCHEZ
Every election cycle reveals something about what voters are really thinking. In this last election, immigration was front and center. After four years of Joe Biden’s presidency, immigration had become more than an abstract policy question, suddenly encompassing everyday concerns such as economic security, public safety, and trust in government.
Across the country, voters made it clear they want an immigration system that’s fair but also much firmer. And this may produce a paradoxical result. President Trump’s
execution of his surprisingly hawkish mandate for “mass deportations” and hardening of the border, if it increases voters’ trust in the system, may finally create the conditions for a comprehensive immigration reform plan to pass.
Recent polling data reveal a growing and nuanced perspective among American voters — especially Hispanic voters in Texas — toward immigration policy and border security. Since 2022, public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of tougher enforcement.
Trump supporters Alfonso and María Isabel Ramirez, with their sons Alex and Andy at their home in Glendale, Arizona in January.
Yet support for a compassionate resolution for long-term undocumented residents also remains intact. This dual result — favoring law and order with a pragmatic eye toward reform — reflects not only national sentiment, but also kitchen-table concerns, particularly among the many working-class Latino voters who crossed over to back Trump.
My work with Patrick Ruffini on the Hispanic Messaging Effectiveness Survey — part of a multiyear study commissioned and shared with permission by Texas Latino Conservatives (TLC) — is illuminating in this regard. Hispanic voters in the battleground districts of South Texas now favor Republicans on the generic congressional ballot by 9 points (46 to 37 percent), a dramatic swing even from their 43to-43 percent tie of 2022, let alone their historically solid allegiance to Democrats.
In short, the Hispanic vote in Texas — and increasingly in other places, too — is no longer as predictably Democratic as it once was. The ebbing of Latino partisanship comes at a moment of frustration over inflation, crime, and a perceived lack of control at the South Texas border.
The Biden years were very tough on South Texas communities, such that immigration, once an issue favorable to Democrats with these voters, is increasingly a plus for Republicans when messaged through the lens of economic stability and security.
The results tell the whole story. No Republican presidential candidate had carried Starr County – the most Hispanic county in America – in 130 years. Yet Republicans surged ahead even there, fueled by economic discontent and a desire for public order.
additional military forces to the southern border. Support for completing the border wall has also climbed above 50 percent — its highest level in years.
Yet public support is not unconditional. Just 47 percent favor cutting federal funds to sanctuary cities. Only 44 percent approve suspending asylum applications. These numbers show that Americans want to see the laws enforced, but not at the expense of compassion or fairness.
Among Texas Hispanic voters, this balance is even clearer. In 2023, 62 percent supported stronger border security measures, and 69 percent also supported either legal status or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the U.S. This suggests that the mainstream voter perspective — particularly among working-class Latinos — is not about closing America off, but about restoring control, trust, and a sense of fairness in the system.
Leslie Sanchez Since 2022, public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of tougher enforcement. Yet support for a compassionate resolution for long-term undocumented residents also remains intact.
In fact, Trump had a breakthrough performance across South Texas, flipping seven historically blue border-area counties stretching from Eagle Pass to the Gulf of America. The margin in these counties swung in Republicans’ favor by 148,000 votes over Mitt Romney’s performance in 2012.
A 2025 Pew Research Center survey confirms the national appetite for stronger immigration enforcement. Fifty-nine percent support increased deportations of undocumented immigrants, and 58 percent back deploying
Why the Messaging Matters: Economics and Everyday Values
By 2023, the TLC survey revealed that Hispanic battleground voters are increasingly responsive to candidates focused on economic and public safety issues. When asked to choose between two unnamed candidates — one focused on crime, inflation, and the border, and the other on clean energy, preserving the right to abortion, and threats to democracy — 63 percent chose the former. This framing perfectly mirrors Trump’s successful messaging in 2024.
What we’re hearing from Latino voters — especially men — isn’t about ideology. It’s about real life. As one respondent told us: “The price of food is going up, and nobody is doing anything about it.”
These voters were hard-hit by pandemic-era shutdowns and especially vulnerable to inflation. What they want is simple: jobs, security, and a chance to thrive.
At the same time, frustration with the Democratic Party has grown. Many Latino voters say it is too focused on cultural debates and disconnected from their economic concerns. In South Texas and other key battlegrounds, this has helped Republicans make historic inroads.
Given the evolving landscape of public opinion and the stakes of the 2026 midterm elections, Republican lawmakers should embrace an immigration reform
message that reflects voter priorities.
1. Lead with Security, Deliver Practical Solutions: Voters overwhelmingly support stronger immigration enforcement. Republicans should increase border resources to stop the flow and keep arresting and deporting lawbreakers. The more ruthlessly they enforce the law, the more quickly they can move to the next step of providing legal status for long-term undocumented residents who contribute to society.
2. Avoid Overreach: Americans support enforcement — not extremism. Proposals like cutting funding to sanctuary cities or freezing all grants of asylum have less support. Policies rooted in justice, not merely punishment, are more politically sustainable.
create a system that works for everyone — especially the working class.
4. Invest in Community Outreach: Republicans must continue showing up in Latino communities nationwide. Gains in places like South Texas, Arizona, and even parts of Nevada and California were hardwon. Sustaining them will require trust, visibility, and continued engagement.
This dual result — favoring law and order with a pragmatic eye toward reform — reflects not only national sentiment, but also kitchen-table concerns, particularly among the many working-class Latino voters who crossed over to back Trump.
America has arrived at a crossroads in the immigration debate, one that has brought with it not only a realignment of Hispanic voters, but an opportunity for Republicans to build a winning coalition with these voters in the years ahead. RF
3. Frame Immigration in Economic Terms: Show how secure borders help to stabilize wages, bring down housing prices, reduce pressure on public services, and
Leslie Sanchez is a Republican strategist, author of Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other, and a contributor to CBS News.
Securing the Northern Border A conversation with
Pete Stauber
While national news continues to focus on the illegal immigration crisis along America’s southern border, a group of likeminded Members of Congress are actively working to support policies and programs aimed at securing another area of vulnerability in our country – the 5,525 mile border between the United States and Canada.
This group are members of the Northern Border Caucus. Established in February 2023 and comprised of two dozen Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the caucus’ mission is to advocate for secure borders and raise awareness of immigration issues for the 13 states which share a border with our neighbor to the North.
Ripon Forum Deputy Editor Caroline Banaszak recently sat down with one of the members of the Caucus, U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber. Elected in 2018, Stauber represents the 8th District of Minnesota. Prior to his election, he spent over 20 years as a police officer in his hometown of Duluth, where he was not only the victim of two violent gun crimes, but gained a first-hand understanding of why more must be done to support law enforcement and create safer communities in the United States.
In our conversation with him, we asked Stauber about the ongoing challenges at the northern border, which policies do and don’t work, and the overall shift he has seen since President Trump took office in January. We also couldn’t have this conversation without asking the Congressman about his thoughts on how illegal immigration – and the crimes that come along with it, such as fentanyl trafficking – are impacting America’s relationship with Canada. He also shared his prescription for the northern border compared to the southern border. We also touched on the state’s many “sanctuary cities” and what he sees them as. Finally, we asked him what the people of Minnesota’s 8th District’s biggest concern is as they deal with the effects of illegal immigration and what he is doing to solve these problems.
RF: To kick things off, you are an active member of the Northern Border Caucus. Could you talk about the mission of the caucus and some of its key goals in the coming year?
Stauber: The Northern Border Caucus was established during the invasion of our southwest border. Under the prior administration, we had agents either physically sent down to our southern border or they were in processing at their northern border offices. They weren’t out and about enforcing border protection – we were losing border patrol agents.
We know that criminals are like water. They’re going to follow the least resistant route, and at times it was our northern border.
I’m part of the Grand Fork sector, which extends from the western edge of North Dakota to Grand Portage, Minnesota – a 600-plus mile stretch. There were times that there were only two mobile agents patrolling that area. That was devastating because we know that many of the illegals and terrorists were coming through our wide-open northern borders.
When we saw that, those of us that represent northern border communities decided to get together, and we really wanted to put an emphasis on securing our northern border; because we know that criminals are like water — they’re going to follow the least resistant route, and at times it was our northern border.
So, when everybody was focused on our southwest border, our northern border didn’t seem to get the attention, and we knew that we needed to do something.
RF: Under the Biden administration, encounters at the northern border increased more than 600 percent from 2021 to 2024. Have you noticed a stark contrast in illegal immigration rates from the Trump and Biden administrations?
Stauber: We’re receiving reports from the Border Patrol that, with increased focus on the northern border,
resorts in northern Minnesota are seeing security helicopters patrolling the area in conjunction with our neighboring friends in Canada. Canada understands that it has to help the U.S. secure the border to stop illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking, because what was happening is a result of U.S. resources being relocated for crossings at the southwest border.
Many illegals first flew into the country of Canada and then came through our northern border because they felt that would be the easiest route. However, we’re seeing that type of activity plummet since President Trump has come into office. Illegal crossings are down about 94 percent . It’s the lowest in about 40 years.
I talked to Paul Perez, the Border Union President. He said, ‘Pete, you wouldn’t believe the attitude change in our agents. They swore an oath to protect this country, and now they have the ability to do this.’
RF: And on that note, what are you hopeful to accomplish with the new Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem?
Stauber: I think that Kristi Noem was an excellent pick. She’s been a wonderful South Dakota governor and next-door neighbor to Minnesota. She is making enforcing and securing our border a priority, and she understands the lack of resources and security at our northern border.
There have been identifiable terrorists in our country and we’re trying to deport right as we speak. But until we deport them, our communities are not safe. Our children and families are not safe.
We’re seeing not only the numbers go down, but you’re seeing the attitude among the agents improve. Also, recruiting for Customs and Border Patrol are both going through the roof, just like they are in the military. We now are focusing on securing our borders.
And by the way, this isn’t just going to be temporary. When we talked to Tom Homan, he said this would be permanent for our nation. This is going to be permanent security and a high priority for our nation in perpetuity.
Many of us have spoken with her, and she understands the emphasis on both borders. We not only have a southwest border, but we have a northern border from the state of Washington all the way to Maine. It’s a long border and it needs to be protected as well. She’s definitely on board with the securing of our borders. She understands the safety and security needed for our citizens and our communities. I’m really looking forward to working with her even more so and helping her with her initiative of securing the border.
RF: With the understanding that a high number of individuals on the terrorist watch list are attempting to enter our country through the northern border, how does the security situation at the northern border compare to the southern border in terms of risks and vulnerabilities?
Stauber: Well, we know that nearly twice as many identified terrorists have attempted to enter through our northern border compared to the southwest border. So, when people ask me, ‘Pete what keeps you up at night?’ What keeps me up at night is the threat of terrorism to our people and our food supply.
When I say terrorism, we know there have been identifiable terrorists in our country and we’re trying to deport them right as we speak. But until we deport them, our communities are not safe. Our children and families are not safe when you have terrorists in our communities who entered our country illegally by walking in through a wide-open border.
be removed, and this president and this administration will not hesitate to remove you.
RF: That leads right into my next question. Sanctuary city policies – there’s a number of sanctuary cities in Minnesota, as well as throughout the country. How do you think these sanctuary policies impact northern border security and immigration enforcement?
The American people, the American industry, the American small business, the American small entrepreneur across this great nation, must be able to compete without any barriers to be able to be successful.
Obviously, the last administration was derelict on that, but in this administration, it is the highest priority. President Trump promised during the election that he was going to secure the border. And the very first thing he did, the very first Executive Order, was to secure the border. He made it a national emergency, and now the resources are there to protect the integrity of the United States and stop illegal immigration.
Now, America was built on legal immigration. There is a legal way to enter our country, and we invite people that want to live, work, play, and recreate in the United States of America and raise families. But there’s a legal way to do it. You do not enter illegally. You will
Stauber: Minneapolis and St. Paul, for example, have stated they will not allow their law enforcement to work with federal agents on deportation, et cetera.
I spent 23 years as a police officer. I can tell you that whenever a federal law enforcement agency asked for our help, we always provided that assistance, and when we needed help from the federal agencies, they provided assistance to us. It was a good working relationship.
Right now, the leaders in Minneapolis and St. Paul are saying they will not allow their officers to help with finding these violent illegal criminals in our country. To me, that says you’re a sanctuary city. You’re allowing criminals to stay in your communities.
What is a sanctuary city? It’s a sanctuary for illegals to hide in your city and commit violent crimes in your city. Tom Homan says we’re getting the worst out first. We’re going after these people. When we know where
Stauber meets with Customs and Border Patrol officers during a July 2020 visit to the port of entry in International Falls, MN.
they are, we’re not going to hesitate. We have to make our community safe. I think it’s absolutely wrong for those mayors and those law enforcement agencies that are told by their leadership to not assist federal law enforcement. It keeps the danger within the community. Law enforcement is supposed to be keeping us safe and working together.
Some of these law enforcement officers in both Minneapolis and St. Paul are so disgusted with their leadership because they want to keep their communities safe. You could take one violent, illegal criminal off the streets and it saves many people from being victimized, which costs the taxpayer money to investigate, put in jail, and to prosecute.
When you have leadership like that, it’s going to be devastating. Minneapolis and St. Paul are feeling that right now; their leadership is feeling it. I know that the police officers, the rank and file are disgusted with their leadership when they say they can’t work alongside other federal law enforcement officers to remove violent, illegal criminals from their streets.
RF: For my last question for you, what is the biggest concern that your constituents have that’s caused by illegal immigration at the northern border?
Stauber: Terrorism to our food supply, terrorism to our people, and the potential for something that one of these criminals could act out. We’ve seen it across the nation. Laken Riley, she was killed by an illegal. It just devastated the community, devastated the family. I don’t want that to happen to anybody else. Not in Minnesota, not in any of the other 49 states or territories.
I’m a father of six kids. My youngest are three and four years old. I want them to live in a safe, happy, prosperous America and not have to worry about these violent illegal criminals coming into our communities.
RF: With Canada being the U.S.’ largest trading partner with nearly $2 billion in goods and services crossing the border daily, how do you see the U.S. successfully securing the border without harming Canada’s trade relationship?
Stauber: Canada and Mexico are our biggest trading partners. Canada will always be our ally and will always be our friend. We want trade to be fair on both sides. We want to have, and we will continue to have, friends in Canada. But we also, in order to establish a friendship, both have to understand where one can’t take advantage of the other. And at the moment, the trade deficit leans to the tune of about 230-some billion dollars in the favor of Canada, and that’s just not fair. President Trump wants to change that.
The President understands that we want to have that deficit as near equal as possible. And quite frankly, that’s his America First agenda. The American people, the American industry, the American small business, the American small entrepreneur across this great nation, must be able to compete without any barriers to be able to be successful. Again, Canada is an ally of ours. There’s no daylight between the United States and Canada. We just want to make the trade deficit better.
So, what we need to do is what the President and his administrators are doing. We have to get out the worst first. I’m a father of six kids. My youngest are three and four years old. I want them to live in a safe, happy, prosperous America and not have to worry about these violent illegal criminals coming into our communities and doing harm to them or their parents, their communities or their business. And that’s what many people are commenting across the eighth district of Minnesota.
The resort owners up north understand that pushing safety and security for our northern border is extremely important. They’ve been very happy with what our office has been doing, what we’ve been sharing with them, and learning how they can help us protect that northern border. We’re not stopping until it’s completely secure. We’re going to use all the resources that we have, and my constituents want the United States government to use all the resources at hand in a legal way to keep them safe. That’s what our office is going to do.
The past administration – the last four years –has been devastating. We have seen fentanyl come up in every community, including Northern Minnesota, where it kills innocent children and family members. It’s devastating. As a police officer, I have given death notifications to unsuspecting parents. When you say your son died of a fentanyl overdose, it’s one of the worst calls any officer can go on, and I’ve done that. That happens about 300 times a day across America – simply unacceptable. And so, that’s what my constituents are concerned about and are happy that we’re making progress on it. They know that I will continue focusing on the safety and security of the United States of America and her citizens. RF
Trump’s Gold Card Will Likely Not Generate Much Revenue
by STAN VEUGER
There has been one exception to the second Trump administration’s efforts to reduce and discourage immigration of all forms and shapes: its so-called “gold card” proposal.
As President Trump said when he announced the proposal on February 25: “We’re going to be selling a gold card. You have a green card. This is a gold card. We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship [as a green card is]. And wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card.”
He also said that sales of the cards would begin in about two weeks. That did not happen, and there is not much clarity around other specifics of the proposal either. But that ought not keep us from speculating a bit about benefits and downsides of establishing a program along these lines.
First, the benefits. The gold card program would add a much-needed, straightforward path — albeit a very expensive one — to permanent residency to America’s labyrinthian immigration system.
impact.
The program would generate revenue from fees as well. How much is a difficult question to answer, but I am not particularly optimistic. Potential immigrants who can part ways with $5 million are likely very wealthy individuals whose income is mostly capital income. If they are free to travel to the U.S. but are not interested in working here year-round, like most European and Japanese citizens, the added benefit of permanent residency is not that clear.
The gold card program would add a much-needed, straightforward path — albeit a very expensive one — to permanent residency to America’s labyrinthian immigration system.
As an illustration, consider the program that is closest in spirit to the gold card, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The EB-5 program provides a pathway to permanent residency (and ultimately citizenship) for immigrants who invest at least $1.8 million in the U.S. (or $900,000 in certain rural and high-unemployment areas) and create or preserve at least ten full-time jobs. If these conditions continue to be met after two years, the immigrant investor becomes eligible for a green card. This is a much more laborious and uncertain process than simply paying a fee, though the fee is significantly higher and, unlike an EB-5 investment, cannot be recouped.
An immigrant admitted with a gold card would produce all of the upside we usually associate with immigration: the immigrant himself benefits, and so do his relatives, business associates, employees, employers, etc. The typical immigrant admitted in this way will likely also add to America’s potential for innovation and business dynamism and have a positive fiscal
For comparison, Malta introduced a gold visa type scheme (at a much lower price point and with a more straightforward path to citizenship) in 2014. In the first five years of the program’s existence, 833 investors and 2,109 family members obtained Maltese citizenship (and with that, EU citizenship), most typically people from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China. That is, the program attracted a few hundred investors per year, and a similar program in Cyprus attracted another 150 or so each year. Based on that experience, it is difficult to imagine the gold visa scheme would generate more than single-digit billions in annual revenue. After all, to hit $10 billion — less than 1 percent of our budget deficit — we would need 2,000 buyers per year.
There are downsides to a program like this as well. It may be seen as unfair to create a special path to citizenship for very rich foreigners, especially at a time when migration has been made more difficult for everyone else. Cyprus has also had to revoke the citizenship of hundreds of golden visa purchasers when they turned out to be unsavory types like fugitive Malaysian financier Jho Low.
Overall, it may be worth creating a new visa program along these lines. But I wouldn’t expect it to have a meaningful impact on our enormous budget deficit, and we would have to be on the lookout for crooks and oligarchs. RF
Stan Veuger is a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Stan Veuger
The Scale and Impact of Contemporary Immigration
by STEVEN A. CAMAROTA
By adding millions of people to the population, immigration impacts everything from the economy and federal treasury to culture and politics. At the start of 2025, the total legal and illegal immigrant population, or “ foreign born” in Census Bureau parlance, is higher now than at any time in our history. Therefore, it is not surprising that the issue has been roiling our politics.
The last “ great wave” of immigration saw the number of individuals who were born in a foreign country hit record highs of 14.8 and 14.7 percent of the U.S. population in 1890 and 1910, respectively. America’s entrance into World War I, followed by restrictive legislation in the early 1920s, caused immigration to decline significantly. By 1970, less than 5 percent of the U.S. population was foreign born.
2025, when the number of those born in another country increased by 8.3 million — more than in the preceding 12 years. New arrivals are offset by outmigration and deaths among the existing immigrant population, which means for the foreign-born population to grow 8.3 million, something like 12 million new legal and illegal immigrants had to arrive during that period.
Steven A. Camarota
A liberalizing reform in 1965, combined with subsequent refugee crises, a major amnesty in 1986, and another expansionist law passed in 1990, increased legal immigration further. Increasing legal immigration, coupled with rising illegal immigration at the same time, caused the total foreign born population to more than quintuple from 9.6 million in 1970 to 53.3 million by January of 2025. Over the same time, the immigrant share of the population more than tripled to 15.8 percent — the highest percentage ever recorded.
The fastest growth in the foreign-born population over a four-year period occurred during the Biden Administration, when the number of those born in another country increased by 8.3 million — more than in the preceding 12 years.
The fastest growth in the foreign-born population over a four-year period occurred during the Biden Administration, from January of 2021 to January of
America has a very generous legal immigration system. Based on the January 2025 household survey, collected by the Census Bureau, I estimate there are 38 million legal immigrants — including naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, foreign students, and guest workers – present in the U.S. I also estimate there are 15.4 million illegal immigrants in the same data. Assuming only a modest share are missed by the survey, about 16 million illegal immigrants now reside in the country — an increase of more than 50 percent in just four years.
There is no mystery as to why the immigration surge occurred. It was a policy choice. Biden ended the Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Central American countries, terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols (also called Remain in Mexico) for asylum applicants, instituted catch and release at the border, and cut back on interior enforcement
As the asylum system and immigration courts became overwhelmed, ever more people showed up at the border in the hope that they, too, would be released with a court date years in the future. The administration
released 7 million inadmissible aliens into the country, including 530,000 flown in under a special “ parole ” program. Added to this are those who snuck across the border successfully or overstayed a temporary visa.
The role that policy played in causing the crisis was made clear when the administration changed course a few months before the November election, and border encounters plummeted. In February of this year, Trump’s first full month in office, encounters were down 94 percent from a year earlier. Trump’s rhetoric, the reversal of Biden’s policies, and pressure on Mexico to interdict migrants caused the influx to
virtually cease.
There is no mystery as to why the immigration surge occurred. It was a policy choice.
Immigration is not an inexorable fact of nature. It is a policy choice, and that choice has consequences. Consider the fiscal situation. The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s 2017 study is still the most comprehensive look at how immigration affects public coffers.
Of the eight different fiscal models the National Academies analyzed, all showed a negative impact of immigration in the present. Their long-term projections, which require a lot of assumptions, produced mixed results.
The fiscal drain is primarily caused by two groups:
legal immigrants who have no education beyond high school, and illegal immigrants. Well-educated immigrants tend to earn relatively high wages, pay a good deal in taxes, and make only moderate use of public services. The opposite is generally true of immigrants with low levels of education.
The economic impact of immigration is distinct from the fiscal impact. There is no question that immigration increases the aggregate size of the U.S. economy by adding workers and consumers. At the same time, because immigrants tend to earn lower wages than those born in the U.S., their entry into the population lowers per capita GDP. But neither of these facts are an indication of whether immigration benefits or harms the American people.
foreign born, roughly half of whom are illegal. By contrast, only 9 percent of those in legal professions are immigrants, virtually none of whom are illegal. Immigration creates relatively little competition for lawyers, so the economic impact for them is mostly upside. On the other hand, immigration clearly makes construction workers worse off.
Probably the best way to think about the economics of immigration is to recognize that it creates both winners and losers.
Probably the best way to think about the economics of immigration is to recognize that it creates both winners and losers. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration tends to lower wages for workers, but it also increases profits for businesses and lowers prices for consumers. These impacts are uneven, however. For example, 37 percent of construction workers are
Of course, the magnitude of all of these impacts depends on the scale of immigration. Reduce immigration, and the impacts will be correspondingly smaller. Therefore, any discussion of immigration policy needs to begin with an appreciation that the number of immigrants in the country and their share of the population are at record highs.
If the goal is to improve the fiscal balance and avoid negatively impacting lower-wage workers, then enforcing laws against illegal immigration and inviting a smaller and more selective class of legal immigrants is the right approach. RF
Steven A. Camarota, Ph.D., is Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies
The High Cost of “Sanctuary”
by DANIEL DI MARTINO
More than one in three Americans live in a state or city that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement by the federal government. These so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions prohibit local law enforcement agents from asking suspects about their immigration status and sometimes even refuse to detain violent criminals until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can arrange for their deportation. They sacrifice their citizens’ safety and tax dollars out of misguided compassion.
Sanctuary jurisdictions began in Chicago in 1985, but it wasn’t until 2011 that action taken by former President Barack Obama triggered more widespread and controversial sanctuary policies. His administration’s “Secure Communities” program sought local governments’ help deporting non-citizens in U.S. prisons and other criminals. Under subsection 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local law enforcement can be enlisted to help enforce immigration law if their local government agrees to it.
that has cost the city over $6 billion in the last four years.
Before killing Laken Riley in Georgia, Ibarra had already been arrested in New York City for child endangerment. But under New York’s sanctuary city laws, Ibarra was not reported to ICE after his arrest — he was released pending trial. Then, to reduce its number of welfare-dependents like Ibarra, New York arranged a free flight out of state for Ibarra. That’s how he wound up in Georgia, free to commit another — more heinous — crime.
New York and other liberal jurisdictions’ sanctuary policies, coupled with its soft-on-crime practices that require no bail releases and make prosecution of minor crimes prohibitively expensive, have transformed its criminal justice system into a social services system — appearing almost unconcerned with ensuring public safety.
Most illegal immigrant crime is preventable, starting with better border security. The critical next step is cooperation between local jurisdictions and federal immigration authorities. If states and cities fail to cooperate, criminals are shielded, while their victims — not only innocent American citizens, but also other legal and illegal immigrants who are trying to build a better life — are endangered.
Daniel Di Martino
A society that prioritizes open door immigration and universal welfare over the rule of law and safety ends in chaos.
Defenders of sanctuary jurisdictions often point to the fact that immigrants, in general, commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. But these defenders omit a crucial detail: the lower rate of immigrant crime is a result of their deportation before they can commit a second crime. Statistics reveal that most crimes are not the product of firsttime offenders; rather, a small group of individuals re-offends repeatedly. American citizens who are recidivist criminals burden the U.S. criminal justice system. Non-citizen recidivism could be eliminated by U.S. immigration law, which mandates deportation after a serious crime — even for legal immigrants.
A tragic example of what can happen when localities don’t cooperate with federal immigration law is the high-profile case of Laken Riley’s murderer. The University of Georgia student was murdered by Venezuelan illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra, who entered the country illegally through the southern border and was then bussed to New York City. There, he received free shelter and meals thanks to New York’s “Right to Shelter” policy
American citizens and legal taxpaying residents of the U.S. are deprived of critical services such as public safety and infrastructure because funds are diverted to cover the cost of shelter, healthcare, and other social services to those in the U.S. illegally. Sanctuary policies created decades ago as reasonable protections for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants have become free shelter and meal arrangements in New York, and Medicaid coverage for all illegal immigrants in California.
While the financial burden of sanctuary policies is staggering, their contentiousness is not just about dollars. A society that prioritizes open door immigration and universal welfare over the rule of law and safety ends in chaos. The fundamental duty of any government is to protect its people and to enforce the law fairly and effectively. Sanctuary deliberately hinders the enforcement of the law against dangerous criminals, sacrificing the well-being of citizens and legal immigrants on the altar of open borders. RF
Daniel Di Martino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and PhD candidate in Economics at Columbia University. Originally from Venezuela, Di Martino is a frequent speaker on college campuses through the Young America’s Foundation.
Should the U.S. Maintain Birthright Citizenship? Yes, Birthright Citizenship Remains Essential for the United States
by MICHAEL FIX
President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to repeal birthright citizenship—the guarantee of U.S. citizenship to anyone born within the country’s borders—would overturn long-standing legal precedent. It would also directly contradict the language of the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
And, importantly, the executive order would contravene its stated purpose of addressing illegal immigration—and in fact would swell the existing unauthorized population, not only today but for the generations ahead, as new U.S.-born residents deprived of the ability to gain U.S. citizenship would automatically join the unauthorized rolls. This creation of a self-perpetuating class of U.S. residents excluded from full membership in the society would undoubtedly create untold problems for the country, not least weakening social cohesion.
a long line of legal scholars from across the political spectrum strongly disagrees, asserting that historical debates surrounding the 14th Amendment, as well as prior common law, clearly establish birthright citizenship as a fundamental principle of American law. This essay argues that repealing birthright citizenship would be unconstitutional, counter to American values, economically harmful, and create an administrative nightmare.
Birthright Citizenship and Founding American Values
Already, multiple district and appellate courts have enjoined the executive order’s implementation. One Reagan-appointed federal judge, in blocking the order, remarked, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.” However, the Trump Administration and other opponents of birthright citizenship continue to claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” leaves room for interpretation, particularly regarding the children of undocumented immigrants or those with temporary visas. However,
One of the most troubling consequences of repealing birthright citizenship would be the creation of a stateless underclass within U.S. borders.
Birthright citizenship is deeply rooted in the founding principles of the United States. The U.S. was established in rejection of monarchy and hereditary privilege, embracing the idea that each person is born equal and should not bear the burdens or legal status of their parents. To repeal birthright citizenship would be a sharp departure from this principle, creating a system in which children inherit the legal disadvantages of their parents, directly contradicting the notion of equality before the law.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War specifically to ensure that citizenship could not be denied based on ancestry or race. The attempt to undermine this constitutional provision echoes historical efforts to exclude certain racial and ethnic groups from full participation in American society. Repealing birthright citizenship would thus represent a regressive shift in policy, rejecting a key founda -
(cont’d on page 22)
Michael Fix
Should the U.S. Maintain Birthright Citizenship? No, it is a Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
by EDWARD J. ERLER
President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders dealing with birthright citizenship constitutes, I believe, the first step in reconsidering what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that, in addition to being born within the geographical limits of the United States, all persons must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. There are thus two requirements for citizenship. Not everyone born on American soil is a citizen by birth because not everyone is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The leading case on the issue of birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Justice Horace Gray, writing the majority decision, argued that the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment established that American citizenship is based on the English Common Law. The immediate problem with Justice Gray’s conclusion is that the language “subject to the jurisdiction” is completely alien to the common law. In some ways, the question of birthright citizenship is complicated; but it is easy to show that the decision in Wong Kim Ark violates the principles of the American Founding and the intentions of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and should be overturned forthwith.
There are thus two requirements for citizenship. Not everyone born on American soil is a citizen by birth because not everyone is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Contrary to much learned opinion that is freely bandied about, repealing birthright citizenship does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be done by using section five of the Fourteenth Amendment which gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment. Congress can simply specify who is “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Why does the Wong Kim Ark decision violate the principles of the American Founding? Before the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Americans were subject to the
English Common Law. Under the common law the American people owed “perpetual allegiance” to the King as a “debt of gratitude” in return for having been born within his protection. This was an “allegiance”—a “debt”—that could not be thrown off or cancelled without the King’s permission. William Blackstone, in his authoritative four volume Commentaries on the Laws of England, published between 1765 and 1769, and well known in America, revealed that the idea of “perpetual allegiance” — the basis for “birthright subjectship” — in the common law was an inheritance from the “feudal system” because it derives from the “mutual trust or confidence subsisting between the lord and vassal.” And Blackstone adds, “by an easy analogy the term of allegiance was soon brought to signify all other engagements, which are due from subjects to their prince.” It is significant that Blackstone never uses the word “citizen” in his four-volume commentary. It is always “subject” and “subjectship.” Clearly — if we are to rely on the authority of its foremost expositor — under the common law there are no citizens, only subjects.
Justice Gray’s opinion for the court in Wong Kim Ark provoked a vigorous dissent by Chief Justice Melville Fuller that was joined by Justice John Harlan. Fuller’s principal argument was that everything in the English Common Law that was incompatible with the principles of the American Revolution as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, especially its central tenet that “all men are created equal,” were null and void. This was especially true, the Chief Justice argued, of the feudal institution of “birthright subjectship.” I believe that this argument is unanswerable.
(cont’d on next page)
Edward J. Erler
(Erler,
cont’d)
Modern scholars seem to be convinced that there are only two choices for determining citizenship: jus soli, citizenship by place of birth; or jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent. But the American Founders relied on neither of these; rather, the ground of citizenship was the social compact principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal means that no one can be ruled or become a citizen with his consent. The common law of subjectship was involuntary and perpetual. The Declaration announced that the American people were “absolved of all Allegiance to the British Crown.” This was a clear violation of the common law, and this violation was clearly understood by the Founders. This was Revolution and a radical break with the old world and its attachment to feudal relics. It is impossible to believe that the same American people, having repealed the English Common Law, at one and the same time adopted feudalism as the basis for the citizenship of the new republican regime that was being created; consent of the people, not kings and lords, were to be the sovereign element of an entirely new regime. The American Revolution transformed subjects into citizens where citizens were expected to assert rights and accept the obligations of citizenship.
natural right detailed in the Declaration are as sound today as when they were written in 1776.
Progressivism, despite its best efforts, has been unable to repeal human nature. The ends of government, according to the Declaration, are the “Safety and Happiness” of the people. When government proves unwilling or unable to secure those ends, the people have the natural right to withdraw their consent and establish new government which it believes can better secure those ends. Tyrannical government may suppress the exercise of the right of revolution for a time, but it can never extinguish it as a fundamental right of the people as long as human nature exists. The love of freedom is an eternal aspiration of the human soul and will always embrace the natural right to revolution when government acts to deprive the people of its right to “Safety and Happiness.”
The American Revolution transformed subjects into citizens where citizens were expected to assert rights and accept the obligations of citizenship.
King George resisted by force of arms until he was forced to recognize America as an independent, sovereign nation in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The American Revolution was a transformative event in world consciousness about the status of natural right and natural rights. The American Founders argued that the right to revolution which was mentioned in the Declaration as both a right and a duty was the right that guaranteed all other rights. The principles of natural law and
(Fix, cont’d)
tion of the nation’s commitment to equality and inclusion.
Creation of a Multigenerational Underclass
One of the most troubling consequences of repealing birthright citizenship would be the creation of a stateless underclass within U.S. borders. Ironically, rather than decreasing illegal immigration, this policy would increase the size of the nation’s undocumented population. Children born in the United States to non-citizen parents would be rendered stateless, unable to obtain work authorization, education, or healthcare, and subject to exclusion from society.
The impact would be devastating, as these individuals—despite being born and raised in the United
Progressives have long advocated a universal homogeneous state and the abolition of the nation state. This means, of course, the abolition of national borders and the institution of open borders. This was undoubtedly always a part of the Progressive plan. It will, of course, limit or even eliminate legal immigration, and end the idea that America stands as a beacon of freedom to the world. With the end of the nation state and the unique privileges and immunities that citizens share — those republican virtues of self-reliance, devotion to the common good, and the active assertion of rights and the fulfillment of civic duties — will give way to rule by bureaucratic elites who will not be deterred by the inconvenience of having to consult the “consent of the governed.” RF
Edward J. Erler is a Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute.
States—would have no legal standing or pathway to citizenship. Over time, this generational transmission of lack of status would create a caste of people denied full participation in society, exacerbating inequality and leading to greater economic and social instability.
An Engine of Successful Integration
The National Academy of Sciences, in a widely respected review of the literature, found that the United States has historically excelled at integrating immigrants: an achievement that I would argue that owes in significant part to birthright citizenship. Unlike many other nations with high levels of immigration, the U.S. has seen significant intergenerational success in immigrant integration.
Studies consistently show that legal status is a key determinant of educational achievement, language proficiency, employment opportunities, and upward mobility. By granting full citizenship to the U.S.-born children of immigrants, birthright citizenship ensures that each generation has the opportunity to fully participate in and contribute to society. Removing this right would hinder the integration of millions of individuals, ultimately weakening the social fabric of the nation.
The Economic Costs of Repeal
At a time when the U.S. faces an aging population and declining birth rates, immigration has been a critical driver of labor force growth. The Congressional Budget Office has found that immigration contributes to GDP growth and helps curb inflation by increasing the labor supply. Repealing birthright citizenship would diminish these economic benefits by reducing the number of young, educated, and legally authorized workers entering the labor force at their full potential.
The vast majority of immigrants come in search of economic opportunity, safety, and a better future. The economic contributions of immigrants and their U.S.-born children, who are projected to account for virtually all labor force growth for the next decades, far outweigh the costs associated with granting birthright citizenship, making repeal an economically short-sighted decision.
The Costs of Exclusion
The Administrative Burden of Repeal
Beyond the ethical and legal concerns, repealing birthright citizenship would impose an immense administrative burden. The current system provides a straightforward, easily verifiable rule: birth within U.S. territory equals citizenship. If this rule were repealed, the government would be required to verify the legal status of every newborn’s parents—a process that would be costly, prone to errors, and lead to further legal disputes.
Historical precedent shows that bureaucratic errors in immigration enforcement often result in wrongful denials of legal status. A policy requiring proof of parental citizenship or legal status would have disproportionate impacts on lower-income and minority populations, who may lack access to the necessary documentation. This would create an inconsistent and discriminatory system that would erode public trust in government institutions.
If this rule were repealed, the government would be required to verify the legal status of every newborn’s parents — a process that would be costly, prone to errors, and lead to further legal disputes.
A “Cure” That Is Worse than the Problem
Although critics argue that birthright citizenship encourages “birth tourism,” there is little evidence to support the claim that people immigrate to the U.S. primarily to obtain citizenship for their children. And the number of U.S. births to foreignborn women who do not reside in the U.S. is negligible . There are other means short of eradicating constitutional protections to tackle birth tourism, including through visa and air carrier policies.
Repealing birthright citizenship would disproportionately harm Latino and Asian American populations, who constitute the largest groups of immigrants in the U.S. The removal of automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born children born to undocumented immigrants would perpetuate cycles of disadvantage, making it even more difficult for these communities to achieve socioeconomic equality and for their members to bring their full talents to the U.S. economy and society.
Moreover, limiting citizenship based on parental status would create administrative and legal nightmares for federal, state, and local agencies, leading to inconsistent application of the law. This would further marginalize already vulnerable populations, deepening racial and ethnic divisions in American society.
The attempt to repeal birthright citizenship is a legally unsound and morally indefensible endeavor that contradicts American values, would create an underclass of stateless individuals, burden government bureaucracy, and undermine the economic prosperity of the nation. The 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring equal rights for all individuals born on U.S. soil.
To dismantle this fundamental principle would be a grave mistake. Birthright citizenship has long served as a pillar of integration and national cohesion. Upholding it is essential to preserving the country’s commitment to economic strength, the rule of law, and equality. RF
Michael
Fix is
a
Senior Fellow and former President of The Migration Policy Institute.
Tillis Talks Trade, Taxes, and the Agenda Moving Forward this Year
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) appeared before a luncheon meeting of The Ripon Society on April 3rd, delivering remarks about trade, taxes, and the agenda moving forward this year.
“ I have no problem with any sort of reciprocal tariffs where there’s a documented gap between our country and countries where there clearly is a deficit and inequity,” Tillis stated, referring to the sweeping new tariffs the President announced earlier this week. “ I have no problem with trying to determine what an equitable outcome is.
“ I’m not in a position to know whether or not the strategy that the Administration has embarked on is the right strategy. But I will tell you this – there better not be anyone in the White House who recommended the tariff regimen that was put out yesterday and has not thought through the second and third order challenges that are going to follow. And frankly, if they haven’t thought it through, they need to be replaced with somebody who has.”
and local politics that culminated with his being elected Speaker of the North Carolina House. Since coming to Washington, he has earned a reputation as a straighttalking legislator who believes not only in the importance of conservative principles to meet the challenges we face at home, but the
he said. “ I don’t care about being punitive towards Russia or any other communist country that’s set on destroying democracy. I do care about generations- and centuriesold friendships, where you have to look at the total relationship to determine what fair and equitable trade means. Hopefully, those who have recommended this path to the President have thought that through. Like I said, if they have not, I hope their replacement will.”
“We owe it to the American people not to raise taxes.”
Thom Tillis, Remarks to The Ripon Society April 3, 2025
Tillis also touched on another key priority on the agenda — extending the 2017 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire — and why it is critical that Republicans remain focused on the issues that were of top concern to voters when they gave the party control of both Congress and the Presidency last year.
Tillis was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014 after a 29-year career in business and a career in state
importance of American leadership to confront the growing threats we face abroad.
Tillis touched on America’s role as the leader of the free world in his remarks on Thursday afternoon.
“ I don’t care about being punitive towards China right now,”
“ We have to get the tax package done,” the North Carolina lawmaker stated matter-of-factly. “ We owe it to the American people not to raise taxes. And if we fail to do it, it will be Republicans who will be responsible for one of the most massive tax increases in modern history. I don’t want that record.”
“ So, I’m going to be fighting to make sure we focus on the main
things that got us to control all of Washington – and that was to address the economy, to address homeland security and to address the national security threats that we have today. Once we get through those three, then you’ll interest me in any number of other things that I would like to get done. But the main thing is the main thing. It’s always the main thing. And when you address it, it’s why you get re-elected and get trusted to continue to lead this great country.”
Following his opening remarks, Tillis was asked a number of questions, including one about the new tariffs announced by the President and the advice he might have for how businesses,
individuals, and other countries should deal with the economic uncertainty in the weeks and months ahead.
“ If I were in the boardroom or in a C-suite with any of the clients that I had in the past,” the former businessman observed, “ I would say, ‘Talk to me in about 90 days on anything related to capital expenditures.’ There are too many unknowns to deploy capital right now. You’d have to be out of your mind, or you’ve discovered a secret to business that I just have never figured out.
“ I can’t say anything more than let’s figure out how we can minimize the damage through the mutually assured destruction of escalating a trade war. Having
said that, we are the ones who lit the candle. And I wouldn’t expect any country to say, ‘ We ’ll take a little pain here, because it will help the global economy.’ That’s not how it works, folks.
“ I’ll tell you the other thing that doesn’t work. You don’t make a promise on making things better through an election cycle. This country was founded on the idea of having elections every two, four, and six years for a reason. We expect results, and we do not reward big mistakes.
“ So, if you can’t prove some incremental positive direction over a reasonably short period of time after an election, you’re going to get toasted in the next election. And rightfully so.” RF
Anita McBride Discusses Pivotal Role
Played by America’s
First Ladies
WASHINGTON, DC — In remarks April 7th before a luncheon meeting of The Ripon Society, former White House official Anita McBride discussed her groundbreaking book, Remember the First Ladies: The Legacies of America’s History-Making Women , and how First Ladies have shaped the American Presidency — and American history — through the years.
“ It ’ s impossible to examine the arc of American history or tell the full story of the American Presidency without considering the influence and the achievement of our First Ladies, ” McBride stated. “ When you think about the role of First Lady in our country, think first about the oath for the President of the United States. It ’ s only 35 words long. There ’ s not one word in the Constitution or any governing document of our nation that tells the First Lady what she ’ s supposed to do. There is no formal position description. It ’ s left to each First Lady to devise how they
want to lead in the role.
“ There was also no formal staff and no formal budget for the First Lady ’s office until 1978 and Rosalynn Carter. In Mrs. Carter ’s memoir, she said the only fight
and too imperial. And so there was a conflict between the two of them over this. But Mrs. Carter persevered. And as someone who worked in the East Wing, I ’ m very grateful for her perseverance. ”
“It’s impossible to examine the arc of American history or tell the full story of the American Presidency without considering the influence and the achievement of our First Ladies.”
Anita McBride, Remarks to The Ripon Society, April 7, 2025
she ever had with her husband was over her desire to expand her office and expand her staff. He had given her an initiative to run, the Mental Health Commission. But he campaigned on cutting the White House staff in the postWatergate era because he felt the presidency had become too large
McBride’s service in White House spans two decades and three presidential administrations. She served as assistant to President George W. Bush and chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush from 2005 to 2009, directing the staff ’s work on the wide variety of domestic and global initiatives in which Mrs. Bush was involved. She previously served as director of White House Personnel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and as director of the U.S. Speaker ’s Bureau at the United States Information Agency. McBride currently serves as executivein-residence at the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in the School of Public Affairs at American University, where she directs programming and national conferences on the legacies of America ’s first ladies and their historical influence
on politics, policy, and global diplomacy.
In 2023, she co-authored the nation ’s first-ever textbook on the contributions of first ladies, U.S. First Ladies: Making History and Leaving Legacies The book was later adapted for the general public under the title, Remember the First Ladies She is also the author of the children ’s book, First Ladies Make History McBride discussed the books in her remarks on Monday afternoon, sharing her thoughts on some of the women who helped make the Office of First Lady what it is today and, in doing so, helped make history.
One of those women was the wife of America ’s third President, Dolley Madison.
“ During the war of 1812, ” McBride recounted, “ Dolley Madison became the first First Lady to actually operate in a war zone. Washington was a war zone. The British advanced on the city, burnt the Capitol, burnt the White House, and they were coming after her. James Madison was out in the field in Bladensburg, Maryland, surveying the advancing of the British troops. They were already here, and she knew there were things that had to be saved. It is not merely legend that the portrait of George Washington was saved. She had it cut from its frame, rolled up, and taken to safety. Why? Because she knew if it had been captured, it would be considered a prize of war by the British, and it would be paraded all over the streets of London as proof that Britain had actually
decimated this new nation.
“ She also saved all of the founding documents that were there in the executive residence. There was no national archives then. Those papers were with the president. There was no Library of Congress. Those papers resided in the President ’s house. She saved them. She was beloved in
Presidency, McBride said, was the wife of America ’s 10th President, John Tyler.
“ Julia Tyler was one of the youngest first ladies in history, ” McBride said. “ Only 24 years old, she was President Tyler ’s second wife. He was 30 years her senior. She only served as First Lady for eight months, but she left an indelible mark on the White House. It is because of her that when a President enters the room, Hail to the Chief is played. ”
Clockwise, from top left: Dolley Madison, Julia Tyler, Melania Trump, amd Rosalynn Carter are some of the First Ladies Anita McBride discussed in her remarks to The Ripon Society on April 7th.
Washington. She tutored many of her successors. When she died in 1849, President Zachary Taylor eulogized her, the entire city of Washington shut down. Her funeral was akin to a state funeral. It was President Zachary Taylor who referred to her as the First Lady of the land. That ’s where we first start to see this term come into existence. ”
Another First Lady who made her mark on the office of the
McBride also touched on the history and precedent being set by America ’s current First Lady, Melania Trump.
“ This is only the second time in our history that a First Lady has returned in a nonconsecutive term, ” McBride observed. “ And you know, Mrs. Trump set a standard when she came the first time. People criticized her for not wanting to move here right away. I looked at it in a different way. I looked at it as this is a position that everybody gets to rewrite in a way that suits them. There is no salary. They get to pick and choose what they want to do. Pat Nixon called it the hardest, unpaid job in the world.
“ By not coming here right away, she made it easier for everybody who follows her. It ’s hard to establish precedent, but I think she has to be given some credit for that. In some ways, it is moving the model forward. As the only second foreign born First Lady, she holds a place in history. And I think she ’s much more confident coming back the second time. ” RF
Name: Lisa Demuth
Occupation: Representative, R-Cold Spring – Speaker of the MN House of Representatives.
Previous Positions held: Representative for District 13A, ROCORI school board member, small business owner.
What was your first job and what was the most important lesson you took from it? My first job was as a car hop in Paynesville at the Frosty Mug, and I learned a lot about service from that job!
How can Minnesota legislators find common ground in an evenly-divided legislature in a highly-contentious political time?
I’ve worked really hard over my time as a legislator, and now as Speaker of the House, to foster good relationships with members across the aisle while holding true to my principles and my duty to Minnesotans.
Challenge facing the people of Minnesota that you are working hard to address: We have a looming $6 billion deficit, fed by a Democrat spending spree last biennium where they spent an entire $18 billion budget surplus, raised taxes by another $10 billion on every Minnesotan, and imposed burdensome mandates on schools, small businesses, and local governments which raises costs even more. We need to return to responsible budgeting and take into account the realworld impacts of the policies we pass instead of writing laws that sound good in theory but just don’t work.
With Republicans in Washington seeking to shift some power to the states, what is one area of government where you would like to see Minnesota have more control? I’d like to see the state have more control over the rampant fraud that has taken place over the last 6 years, including the record COVID fraud that was the largest loss of COVID funds in the entire country. We need concrete steps to address this fraud and hold those who enable it responsible.
We’re building the 5G Economy, community by community.
America boasts the world’s leading 5G networks, covering more than 330 million Americans and counting. These networks are an economic engine, enabling companies, and applications and transforming industries such as healthcare, energy, transportation, logistics, and education. They also power new services like 5G home broadband, which is bringing broadband competition to communities across the country. The 5G Economy will create 4.5 million new jobs and generate $1.5 trillion in economic growth during this decade, according to Boston Consulting Group.
CTIA is proud to support the Ripon Society.
