Immigration Is A Proxy Issue For A Western Government Trend
Mass immigration doesn’t stand alone. Instead, Western governments, including ours, have much grander plans for the end of nations.
Allan J. Feifer | July 19, 2026 www.americanthinker.com
One of the greater mysteries of our century may be why governments across much of Europe, North America, and even Australia adopted remarkably similar immigration policies seemingly at the same time. It is difficult to believe this happened by chance. And unlike Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, which explains how complex order can arise without central direction, mass migration appears less like an organic historical development than a remarkably coordinated political calculus.
There are many explanations; some point to economics, others to humanitarianism. Others argue that businesses sought inexpensive labor or that politicians sought new voters. Whatever the explanation, governments across Western civilization not only permitted but actively facilitated mass immigration, even in the face of demonstrably low rates of assimilation by some groups. Government leaders have bent over backward, not only facilitating their entry but also subsidizing their living costs, looked the other way as large numbers of young male migrants, including many with criminal histories, entered and remained, and then protected them from expulsion.
This essay examines the forces that continue to promote this mass immigration despite electoral and mounting fiscal costs, and shows how these new immigrants have consistently failed to assimilate. Why do progressive governments cling to these policies like glue? Why do major media organizations so often minimize migrant crimes while emphasizing stories that reinforce preferred narratives that are harmful to a country’s citizens? Why has a common vocabulary—words such as “welcoming,” “neighbors,” and “safety”—appeared almost simultaneously across governments, advocacy groups, and media outlets?
The central question is not whether large-scale migration has been encouraged; evidence supports that conclusion. The real mystery is how so many institutions, in so many countries, arrived at the same destination nearly simultaneously.
So, how did it occur? To answer this question necessarily requires some inference and speculation.
What we can say is that over several decades, international and domestic organizations and leaders of many Western democracies have shifted away from the central importance of the individual toward a collectivist mentality. Recurring themes promoting transnationalism, nationhood, borders, and identity politics conflict with traditional bedrock constructs such as citizenship and defensible borders.
The people undertaking these discussions and actions are well-funded, disciplined, coordinated, and, if you look at how consistent the messaging and actions are across the Western world, it becomes more difficult to discount coordination by parties, known and unknown, driving us toward a unipolar, undemocratic future. Mass migration is one of the tools of this drive.
So where does this lead? I see three takeaways:
1. There is a concerted effort to make large-scale immigration seem not only acceptable but desirable.
2. As during COVID, we can again witness intense pressure to conform to a curated socially correct way of thinking, particularly in blue states and cities.
3. We are witnessing an intensive effort by progressives to internationalize social, legal, and even historical events, delegitimizing European and American national identities and, especially, America’s constitutional ethos.
Mass immigration is one manifestation of a broader worldview that regards national identity, citizenship, borders, and other inherited institutions as obstacles to be reimagined rather than foundations to be preserved.
If that interpretation is correct, immigration is not the end of the story but the beginning. Once that framework takes hold, it naturally extends into other debates—affordability, antisemitism, international policy, wealth inequality, and countless other issues where traditional American assumptions are increasingly challenged.
Mass immigration is not the only social construct at play; it is simply among the most visible. If this broader project succeeds, what remains is a society progressively reorganized around a different set of political assumptions—what many would instantly recognize as collectivist.
Americans may never have been as disconnected and, arguably, as confused and at odds as they are today. The divisions are palpable, not unlike the question of slavery was before the Civil War. And it is easy to understand why. The various institutions that people follow, from the political party they support to their religious institutions, schools, and the government that leads us, are catering to polarizing constituencies, sending out mixed and utterly confusing messages that frequently make no sense!
I want to say that our institutions reflect logical, evolving priorities, but I can’t. Our institutions are not just confused concerning their underlying assumptions; no, they’re actively rejecting essential tenets, such as the centrality of our country’s founding and our Constitution. Until recently, that wasn’t up for discussion. However, today, progressives are aligning against our historic principles and, frequently, the will of the people.
Illegal mass immigration is ultimately a symptom of a larger debate over the direction of our nation, accountability, and what has allowed policies that would have been previously rejected out of hand. The confusion, uncertainty, and even anger many feel are palpable. Our country is blessed with a system that has a built-in capacity for self-correction. We don’t know today who, what, or even why America’s future is in play. God willing, we’ll figure it out and self-correct before it is too late.
Regardless, immigration cannot be understood as an isolated policy disagreement. It has become a proxy for a much larger debate over sovereignty, citizenship, democratic accountability, and what our country is to become. Until Americans address that larger argument, we’ll continue debating immigration while missing the philosophy that increasingly drives it.
God Bless America.
