Matt Walsh and other commentators have become articulate conduits of a new sociopolitical frustration. The slogan “America First” always had a long and tangled history, yet its present revival signals something more than a campaign tagline. Instead, it is a reaction to cumulative social fatigue.
When Walsh and others speak of an “America First” or even “America Only” posture, the rhetoric aims less at isolationism and more at a plea for triage. For some time now, the country seems to have been haemorrhaging civic strength, economic stability, and cultural coherence for decades. Meanwhile, its leaders have crafted policies that gesture toward everywhere except home.
Polling from Pew Research in 2023 indicated that a majority of Americans believed the federal government focused too much on international affairs and too little on domestic problems, demonstrating a sentiment that rose across both parties. The instinct for national self-preservation inevitably gains traction when citizens feel that those in charge possess more enthusiasm for managing other nations than for addressing grocery bills and mortgage rates in their own communities.
The last several administrations, irrespective of party, were guilty of contributing to this atmosphere. The trajectory of modern politics has favored theatrical foreign crusades, complex financial interventions, and sprawling bureaucratic expansions. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens find themselves dealing with daily pressures that have climbed faster than wages. Inflation and the cost of living rise at a rate that feels almost mocking.
Between 2020 and 2023, the Consumer Price Index rose more than it had in any equivalent period since the early 1980s, and grocery prices rose by more than seventeen percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Housing prices stretch toward margins that would have made previous generations blanch. The median home price doubled between 2011 and 2023, according to the Federal Reserve. Debt per household reaches records almost annually, and much of it is consumer debt that indicates survival rather than luxury. The New York Federal Reserve reported that credit card balances reached more than one trillion dollars for the first time in 2023, with delinquencies also rising. Though economists debate the nuances, the American family is squeezed by policies crafted in boardrooms and committee chambers whose residents rarely face the consequences personally.
An obvious example sits in the structure of entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicaid, and a range of welfare provisions consume enormous portions of the federal budget. The intent of the original programs was noble, and some of what these programs accomplish remains indispensable. Yet the present implementation expanded eligibility to such a degree that many able-bodied adults have drifted from the workforce toward long-term dependency.
A 2022 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that the number of prime-age males out of the labor force grew steadily for decades, and a significant subset reported no disability that would impede work. Analysts from AEI, Brookings, and other institutions documented how pandemic-era expansions entrenched withdrawal from productive labor even when jobs became abundant again. One Brookings analysis showed that labor-force participation among childless adults receiving expanded Medicaid dropped measurably in states with broader eligibility rules.
This creates a dual crisis where the welfare system strains under growing expectations, and the labor market strains under declining participation. In both circumstances, the taxpayer receives the bill for both failures.
The nation also struggles with an immigration dilemma so large that polite euphemisms fail to capture its scale. Millions of undocumented migrants have entered through a border that functions more as a polite suggestion than a sovereign boundary. Customs and Border Protection recorded more than eight million encounters at the southern border between 2021 and 2024, the highest in the agency’s history. This influx created vast shadow communities operating outside basic expectations of public life.
Entire illegal job markets flourish, causing direct harm to the legal job market. Local hospitals and schools absorb burdens they are not equipped to handle. Cities such as New York projected migrant-related expenses exceeding twelve billion dollars over two fiscal years. Border towns resemble staging grounds for humanitarian triage. Citizens witness these realities and wonder why their leaders continue to appear more interested in securing foreign borders than their own. The grievance deepens when they pay rising taxes to finance these very systems that seem engineered for dysfunction.
Given this context, the appeal of “America First” and “America Only” is quite understandable: it has a moral and civic logic rooted in ordinary human experience. Citizens desire leaders who recognize an elementary truth that even children intuit—that responsibility begins at home. A father who excels at his career while his family languishes earns the reputation of a scoundrel. A pastor who invests more energy in a conference speaking schedule than in his parish earns the critique of negligence.
Public office carries similar moral gravity because when an official raises a hand and swears an oath, the oath is a covenantal act. It binds the officeholder to the welfare of a specific people: the people who elected him into office. Augustine observed in The City of God that civic leaders rightly order their duties when they attend to their immediate communities first, since proximity of care follows from the order of charity. The natural law tradition affirmed that governance possesses a hierarchy of priority, and the immediate community always holds primacy.
Aquinas treated patriotism as a natural virtue because it arises from the debt a person owes to the community that nurtures him. This virtue flows from piety, which directs gratitude toward parents and country. Since grace perfects nature, the supernatural virtue of charity deepens patriotic loyalty rather than dissolving it. Patriotic responsibility can never become an excuse for injustice, yet its presence forms part of the ordinary texture of moral life. Many Americans instinctively understand this, even if they could not cite Aquinas directly.
The doctrine of the common good within Catholic social teaching follows the same hierarchy. Elected officials have a duty to protect and promote the conditions under which their constituents may flourish. This unfolds at various levels of authority. The principle of subsidiarity instructs that decisions ought to be made at the lowest feasible level, and it compels the state to avoid imposing functions that communities and families can carry out themselves. It also called for an interior focus on constituents by elected officials. Subsidiarity matches the instinct behind “America First” and “America Only” with surprising clarity. It resists overextension of federal power, cautions against reckless foreign entanglement, and demands that governance emerge from the care of local communities before venturing into global ambitions.
Solidarity enters the conversation as well, and it extends the vision outward without undermining subsidiarity. While subsidiarity obliges a nation to govern itself first, solidarity obliges a nation to consider the legitimate needs of its neighbors and allies when its internal common good has been reasonably secured.
Augustine highlighted this dynamic when he illustrated that although charity begins at home, it moves outward once foundational duties have been satisfied. While George Washington’s foreign policy exemplified restraint, and James Monroe’s doctrine demonstrated careful attention to hemispheric stability, both these approaches remain compatible within a Catholic moral framework. This is because it sees the United States as a nation with responsibilities that follow a clear moral ordering. The local and national common good must first and foremost be healthy before a nation expends its resources elsewhere, and the care of international partners becomes a secondary obligation rather than a primary obsession.
At this moment, the American citizenry is dealing with genuine hardship. Families face economic anxiety. Communities experience cultural fragmentation. Workers confront declining real wages. The public square feels disordered and fatigued. These symptoms point to deeper civic wounds. The priority of governance, therefore, must shift toward healing domestic health. The national common good demands recovery before generosity abroad can resume. Charity may expand outward only when justice is secured inward. An America that fails to care for its own people will accomplish very little in the global arena.
“America First” and “America Only” in their healthiest form express a desire for rightful political order. American citizens today long for leaders who honor the covenantal oath inherent in public office. They want a nation that seeks the welfare of its people, guards its borders, stabilizes its currency, lowers its debt, restores healthy work incentives, and tempers its foreign entanglements until its own home is in order. Such a vision aligns with Catholic social teaching because it enacts subsidiarity, honors solidarity, upholds human dignity, and works towards a proper framework of the common good. In particular, subsidiarity leads government toward local restoration, while solidarity prevents the nation from drifting into a hardened isolation.
The path forward requires well-formed statesmanship capable of making such distinctions. Citizens are weary of false dilemmas that demand a choice between reckless globalization and reckless isolation. There exists a rational, virtuous middle stance. Order the home first. Heal the national wounds. Secure the common good at the local and national levels. Then, from a position of civic strength, extend measured assistance to allies and partners as prudence dictates.
A nation that follows that hierarchy reflects a Catholic understanding of political life where charity and justice cooperate rather than collide.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Yes, the “common good” should govern. Not just tax cuts for billionaires.
Depending on the source, the estimate methods and capital market gyrations, there’s 800-1000 U.S. billionaires It’s further estimated that their collective fortunes have an estimated value of in the range of $7.5 Trillion. That’s the value of their wealth, not the income they produce. Even if there could be a complete confiscation and liquification of this wealth, and not a fire sale discount, it would eliminate about one fifth of the acknowledged federal debt-until the spendthrifts in DC blew it on new vote buying and influence peddling schemes.
The truth of the matter is that an increasing number of filers have no federal tax liability. In 1980, about one in five of all filers had no liability, today it’s about one in three. Of course those statistics don’t tell us much about the number of people with “negative liabilities” through so-called “refundable credits”, notably the “Earned Income Tax Credit” (unearned income free gift).
It actually takes a little more than a quarter of million dollars in adjusted gross income to be in the top five percent of of earners and in 2022, the top 10% of earners accounted for 72.0% of all income taxes paid in 2022, while the top 25% were responsible for 87.2%. It takes a tad less than $100,000 of adjusted gross income to be included in the top 25%.
The moral of the story is you can’t get a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes and other than using the tax code as penalty, it won’t do a thing about the bee in your bonnet, which is that you can’t mind your own fiscal business.
The great irony is many billionaires can attribute a part of their fortune to government hyperactivity and taxes. Jeff Bezos of Amazon got initial traction by allowing people to escape state sales taxes, Elon Musk’s Tesla benefitted from electric vehicle credits, and after buying the BNSF railroad and taking it private to avoid Sarbanes-Oxley costs, Warren Buffett lobbied Obama to kill the Keystone Pipeline to force the oil to be transported by rail.
Have you ever considered that Churchill’s advice that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool is better than speaking and removing all doubt might be applicable to you?
To TPR- Excellent summary of tax bracket/ liability. You can’t cut taxes on people who do not pay taxes should put an end to “tax cuts for the rich” argument, but is hasn’t in the past, and unfortunately probably won’t now.
Thank you.
The thing you need to understand about the tax code is that it is as much an instrument of control as revenue and how the visceral envy of the Williams of the world make them the “useful idiot” foot soldiers of the architects on democratic inversion.
The way it really works is that once you think through the effects of a basic rule taught in every introductory undergraduate finance class-that the after tax cost of any deductible item = (1- Marginal Tax Rate) multiplied by the pre-tax cost, you realize that high marginal rates allows politicians to sell enhanced or extended deductions to organized, conspicuous interests. Preferences and credits also go up in value.
The interesting thing is how this produces perverse effects. If you as an ordinary person go and buy a $100 item, say a printing calculator, that is not deductible so, your after tax cost is $100.
But if a “C” corporation buys the same calculator or anything else that is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense; its taxable income is reduced by that $100 purchase price. Since the tax rate is currently 21%, it’s tax bill is reduced by $21, meaning that it’s true after tax cost is $79. [(1-.21) multiplied by $100].
This is a minor detail, since a great many federal programs are fueled by the unfettered expenditure authority of the federal government. They are designed to provide a direct and conspicuous benefit to individuals, making them dependent and easily manipulated at election time.
“My opponent voted to cut funding for government cheese. Government cheese benefits helps poor children grow strong and healthy. My opponent doesn’t care if your children are strong and healthy. Vote for me, I’ll expand the government cheese program (It helps if the commercial shows children with empty plates). I’m Senator Blowhard and I approve this message.”
And in the board room of The American Association of Cheese Markers- they know they are being subsidized, so out comes the check to “Friends of Senator Blowhard”.
It’s all very simple and yes politics as the second oldest profession resembles the operation of the oldest profession.
Mass enlightenment? No, it’s not happening, still it’s better to light a fiscal candle than curse the fiscal darkness.
Oh please enlighten us O wise one. I am not talking wealth confiscation, just have the Uber rich pay their fair share of taxes. The tax cuts of “the big beautiful bill” will explode the national debt. So we all pay interest on that debt in perpetuity so Elon can be a Trillionaire?
You call me a fool. You have never met me, so how do you know that I am a fool. You brag about having an MBA, but so do I. You write in a condescending tone and resort to personal insult again and again. You are glib but not wise.
Your posts demonstrate nothing but a complete ignorance of the dismal science, immersive partisanship and an inability to answer logically, and a constant resort to slogans.
Your retort about “red states” and sales taxes is typical of your responses.
This one is also typical. You can’t comprehend, let alone compete with any coherent recitation of the facts, so you resort to slogans and contrived indignity-when I already demonstrated with numbers if every damn dollar was confiscated from billionaires-it wouldn’t budge the needle.
You are simply to immersed in your own bilious envy to understand that the $38T acknowledged debt is excess spending, not inadequate taxation, which is why you want MOAR.
I did not call you a fool, I suggested you follow Churchill’s advice about fools. I would not call you a fool, fools have a right not to have their reputations injured by guilt through association and many are of good cheer.
It is not necessary to meet people to accurately judge their intellectual capacity and disposition. Most of us, for example can read Marx and understand he was morally deranged and intellectually wanting.
One insult after another. Fool, useful idiot, etc. it’s getting tiresome. Because I disagree with you, you go on the attack.
Billionaires create jobs.
But their wealth grows and grows while the rest of us are falling behind. How about some fairness? The top 3 billionaires have more aggregate wealth than the bottom 50% of the American people. Some will accuse me of “class warfare.” Well, the billionaires and CEO’s have already declared war on the rest of us. Perhaps we need to examine this gross income equality more closely.
Yes, billionaires create jobs but too many f them are low wage, no benefits jobs. So how will Elon being a “Trillionaire” help me and others who are not wealthy?
You seem to take the side of the Uber rich again and again. They don’t deserve defending. Their greed is crushing the rest of us.
I don’t envy anyone their wealth. I think it’s great that the USA still offers opportunities for that kind of success.
It’s not the same opportunity your generation and my parents had post war. The cost of living and the cost of starting a business are 10 times higher than in 1945 (guessing) and the small businessman cannot keep up with all the regulations and compliance requirements, let alone find someone who wants to work for a day’s wages. It’s also hard to ditch your job and start a business unless your spouse has health insurance.
As technology increases it makes certain segments more wealthy. I see it in the farms in my area that were able to stick it out they’ve gained tremendous wealth from leveraging technology – not necessarily working hard, except for the increased stress of all the responsibility.
Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living, for sure.
Millions of Americans thrown off Medicaid to pay for tax cuts to Elon & Co. do you actually agree with that? So Elon becomes a Trillionaire while millions of Americans lose medical care. So much for the Common Good.
Things have changed for sure knowall, but I think overall we have less regulations & it’s still easier to do business in the US than in some other developed nations.
You don’t but “William” does but he’s so envious and innumerate that he doesn’t understand what he writes is patently absurd.
His emetic reaction: “spend more money” shows his abject ignorance and willingness to throw gasoline on an electrical fire, because as everybody knows liquids extinguish fires.
A serious commenter would wonder why the medical system grows ever more disordered years after the “Affordable Care Act” and why as of end of 2023, the weighted average of health insurer stock prices were up 1,032 percent from 2010, when the ACA was enacted, and 448 percent from 2013, the year before implementation of the ACA’s key provisions. By comparison, the average respective growth of the most popular S&P 500 exchange-traded fund (ETF) was 251 percent and 139 percent.
Even by 2017, the LA Times had an article “Insurers make billions off Medicaid in California during Obamacare expansion”
Rent-seeking parasites love William, as do the Congress Critters who got those “ten-bagger” returns in return for enacting this monster.
William: “Some will accuse me of “class warfare.””
No, willful economic ignorance is not class warfare, but it is a violation of the Eighth Commandment like every other lie we tell ourselves. For starters wealth creation is not a zero-sum game. Greater assets under control of business creators, who survive the effects of continuous government greed and the moral jealousy of bureaucrats and politicians seeking to stop them, does not occur at the expense of the poor. And there is no such thing as tax cuts for billionaires. Tax cuts always begin at the bottom. Your contention that millions of Americans are thrown off Medicaid to pay for tax cuts to Elon & Co, is beyond preposterous.
Government “compassion corruption” is the largest source of waste in America, and it involves trillions over the years. Administrators of “outreach” programs tend to pocket all the money. To date, those devastated by the California fires last winter, a direct result of non-accountable government policies, have not received a penny. Recently the phony compassion of previous non-accountability in Minnesota has revealed millions funneled to terrorist groups in Somalia by the organized fraud of “the poor.”
I believe small businesses actually are the job drivers in the US.
“A nation that follows that hierarchy reflects a Catholic understanding of political life where charity and justice cooperate rather than collide. Citizens demand a choice between reckless globalization and reckless isolation”.
A good set of principles for the Church to advise Congress. A transgression of boundaries when the Church both advises and condemns an administration for its domestic and foreign policies, alleging a moral distortion between the two. That demands, Get your house in order before engaging in foreign policy.
A nation’s administration is privy to national security interests related to foreign actors. For the well read, theologically informed Catholic director of theology to assume superior knowledge of moral, political interests is a bit farfetched.
It appears to betray a political alignment, which the author apparently critiques the present administration, when, as an example, the former political party under Barack Obama deported 3 million illegal migrants. Why no outcry from the USCCB then as we experience now? Certainly it pinpoints an anomaly in the exercise of moral judgment. Justice both theological and political demands political discretion and moral equanimity.
Fr. Peter: Do as I say, not as I do. As with the pharisees, Jesus told His followers to follow their teachings, not their example!
Fr.Peter: dammed if you do dammed if you don’t. The Obama administration not being held accountable for deportations? We should know more about the specifics and means used to deport these illegals. Who were they and why deported. Were they undesirables, were they children, families? Were they sent to camps in countries other than of their origin? Were they given due process? Were they rounded up indiscriminately in groups by masked, armed thugs? Were some treated brutally when non resistant? I’m not saying Obama used angels and Trump, demons; but I think that there is a distinct difference in the means used to obtain the seemingly good same end. Perhaps the USCCB did not make an outcry because no red flags were thrown up by society in general. It’s always important to compare apples with apples. I think that old adage applies here! God bless, Father. I greatly respect your priesthood and calling.
Thanks James. At the time Obama deported migrants there was less resistance from either party. Dynamics were different. At any rate I pray that the protests don’t increase and get out of control.
Right. Obama was a progressive Democrat, so him deporting 3 million people is ok. It’s only a problem when Trump does it 🙄
Again Right! In the false religion of see how compassionate I am, those who wave the phony banner get a free ride. Their entire sense of self-worth is on the line.
I see foreign policy is important to you. How about the pro-life movement? Would you use the same logic? “Get your own house in order. Until the Church on earth is sinless, begone with your criticism of abortion.”
Hopefully you see the problem there. It really is a fallacy to reject criticism just because the person or group of people offering the criticism is imperfect. This includes not only the hierarchy, but also the voters, professional consultants, and, well, anyone not currently in Heaven. Notably, it includes you. Is YOUR house in order? If you say yes, why should we believe you?
It is not likely that you really want this fallacy followed strictly and universally, but you have something dear to your heart you want to protect but which you have so far been unable to convince the hierarchy of. IF you want to convince even the comment section of this magazine, come up with better arguments.
Outis, you’re proposing a circular argument. Think! You say I cannot criticize someone’s criticism although somehow, by some mysterious logic, you can criticize my criticism.
My criticism of Peter’s, and your allusion, is that we cannot engage in foreign policy until we resolve all the domestic issues he lists. And in the same breadth he advises we must avoid isolationism and globalization. Since we live in the real world we must engage in both the resolution of domestic as well as foreign issues.
What I say doesn’t exclude excess in implementing an America First ideology. Although, as a marker, where does Mark Peter say anything positive regarding the present administration?
To further clarify, I do not criticize Dr Peter’s right to criticize, rather I was critical of the substance of his criticism on the specific issue addressed in my comment. As to what Peter’s says elsewhere I’m largely in agreement.
Perhaps it is question of emphasis and priorities. Domestic issues should take precedence. If there are not enough resources, one must prioritize. This is the course we all follow in the management of our houses or affairs. Government of course does not do that because all it has to do is raise taxes to get more income.
But the present administration is not worse and probably better than previous ones in avoiding the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against in his last pronouncement. Think of the Obama administration regime change in Lybia and the killing of Khadafy, which led to the present chaos in Libya and the massive invasion of Europe by people from the region and the sub-Sahara. Or the Bushes disastrous Middle East and Afghan regime change entanglements that led to the massive invasion of Europe by millions. And so forth.
And indeed taking the wealth from those who have a lot of it is no solution. It has been tried. Think of the USSR. Or Cuba. Communist China has avoided that disaster by actually allowing the existence of billionaires under its brutally repressive atheist regime! Allowing them has permitted China to become a world power capable of actually challenging the US economically and otherwise.
But again perhaps this is a matter of degree or priorities that could be a better course for us: tax the ultra-rich at a much higher rate but not at the confiscatory levels that have been tried in the world and have not worked. For an artistic and visual illustration of what the pursuit of “social justice” can lead to, I know of two movies, available at amazon, namely “Una Noche” and “The Lost City”. There is a short review that may interest fellow readers and the author of the article (all of you show an impressive understanding of the issues even when you disagree on the approaches to them!): “Escaping Havana”:
https://lawliberty.org/author/dario-fernandez-morera/
Very well stated.
Oscar, the point I’m driving at is while Dr Peter is critical of Trump’s America First [I don’t recall Trump saying America Only] the president has indeed engaged the US in foreign policy, although unlike his predecessors did not involve us in reckless wars, rather in resolving wars. Furthermore, he’s done more to protect the lives of the unborn than any previous administration. He’s correctly addressed the LGBT insanity. It’s reprehensible to criticize him for his epithets America First etc and not to recognize these achievements abroad and at home.
Its hard to cut taxes for those who do not pay in the first place. Which is MOST citizens. Like the 42 million on SNAP.
The whine about tax cuts for billionaires is not only nonsensical, its boring at this point. Suppose EVERYBODY pony up some taxes and then we can talk??
Well , we all pay sales taxes though. Some poorer states like ours have pretty high sales tax. The state gets it’s cut one way or the other.
I don’t begrudge the wealthy their tax situation nor those on public benefits.
even the able bodied young men who won’t work but get health coverage because they have no income?
Yes, everyone pays sales taxes. Even those who aren’t US citizens.
I was referring to the Medicaid funded in part by the Feds
why should you be sitting in your parent’s basement playing video games at age
30 and be qualified for Medicaid?
Sales tax is regressive taxation. Tax the poor. Typical for red states.
You mean states like California, Illinois and New York?
Pitchfork Ben Tillman possibly?
It’s going to vary Mr. William. Some states exclude food from sales tax or at least, tax food at a lower rate. Some communities add local sales taxes also.
We Americans pay lots of taxes and get little for it. In Scandinavian countries, the citizens at least get medical care. We pay for a lot of stupid foreign wars, which do not benefit us, except for defense contractors.
My guess is that we’ll eventually have nationalized healthcare of some sort but with that comes all the problems you see associated with incentives to economize & conserve finite medical resources. Especially in ageing societies. Euthanasia being #1.
There’s no free lunch.
As well they should. No-tax living. Insulting the dignity and honor of the poor, typical for the liberal establishmen.
What does that have to do with federal taxes?
Americans are struggling in part because too many resources are being shoveled to illegals who do not belong here. School test scores dropping, long waits to see doctors, housing prices beyond reach, our language, culture and history under attack. Frankly , too many people coming for the freebies, too many who need financial help which should go to our own citizens.
Its time to close the door to immigrants, for several years at least, until we have a grip again. Be certain if you elect democrats, the doors will swing wide open again, with catastrophic consequences. Because dems are only interested in personal power, not in the good of the country. Its why they challenge even ordinary workings of govt under Trump with lawsuits galore. And fake charges when they can do so. Its why they shut the govt for 42 days, no matter that air travel became dangerous for the rest of us. The Epstein file release must have been such a disappointment for them after having ginned up so many lurid fantasies about it hoping to attack Trump.
The recent election of a communist to Mayor of NYC tells me that unfortunately too many Americans care about free stuff for themselves and nothing else, certainly not the good of the country or fellow citizens. Its of note that Mandami gathered a very high percentage of vote from the foreign born, higher than that of native born citizens.
Put me down for America, and Americans, first. ALWAYS.
It’s not the migrants’ fault if we’ve given them too much free stuff. That’s on our government.
Actually, its on those citizens stupid enough or uninformed enough or partisan enough to cast their vote for those who endorse immigrant first policies. The rest of us who DO NOT vote for such people unfortunately get dragged along for the ride, while also being forced to pay the bill for things we dont believe in. California for example is hard at work trying to deny 40% of their population ANY representation in government. Dem apologists will point to the recent redistricting in Texas and say that they are only matching what the Republicans did. Yet another Democrat lie. The same folk outraged by the move in Texas will turn a blind eye to the fact that DEMs have long gerrymandered to ZERO (years ago) republican representation at the federal level in Massachusetts and several other blue states. Texas was simply an attempt to match them at their own LONGSTANDING game.
The final responsibility rests on our govt. But yes, we shouldn’t be voting or enabling those politicians either.
I’m 100% in favor of more safe & legal immigration but these folks worked in their home countries & they can work here, too. Everyone who’s able bodied should pull their own weight & not use up finite social welfare benefits that are intended for the truly needy. That goes for US citizens working the welfare system also. I used to work with Section 8 housing & it wasn’t immigrants/migrants committing fraud. It was US tenants & their landlords.
the ones in the New York hotels were a total mess
I live in Howard County, MD, which is about 25% Asian. Many are doctors, engineers and own businesses. America first? Well, they are Americans too.
Another strawman. No one ever said otherwise.
Was being an American of Asian ancestry in question?
but they’re legal it sounds like? The Asians discriminated against as well as some Americans getting into colleges or post graduates