Favoring Citizens in Policy is Immoral
False Assumption: Immigration laws should not discriminate in favor of current American citizens over foreigners.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In the early 2000s, American polls showed widespread public anger over illegal immigration and high legal levels. A CBS News poll found 75 percent saying the government did too little to stop illegals. Yet elites on left and right blocked reforms. They profited from cheap labor and votes. They framed restrictionists as lacking moral depth.
Legislation like the 1986 amnesty promised employer sanctions but saw no enforcement after businesses complained. The 1996 law changed little. Special interests decided immigration via family rules and border sneaking. Low-skilled immigrants cost taxpayers $90,000 net each per a 1997 National Academy of Sciences study. America risked Third World population levels without limits.
Citizenism, which calls for favoring fellow citizens, stayed outside the Overton Window. Elites pushed multiculturalism and propositionism instead. Critics note polls and fiscal data raise questions about open policies. Debate continues with public sentiment against high immigration persistent.
Organizations Involved
Corporations pushed for high immigration to secure cheap workers. The upper middle class benefited from affordable servants. Democratic machines gained votes from the influx. Ethnic activists built careers around the cause. These groups profited while promoting the idea that favoring citizens was immoral. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Immigration provides corporations with cheap workers, the upper middle class with off-the-books servants, Democratic political machines with votes, and ethnic activists with careers.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
The Foundation
Elites turned to multiculturalism and propositionism in the late 20th century to back high immigration levels. They painted preferences for current citizens as discriminatory. Polls showed public opposition, and fiscal studies highlighted costs, but these were often sidelined. Sub-beliefs emerged, like the notion that restrictionism lacked depth and that random lotteries such as the Diversity Visa were equitable. [1] Neoconservative propositionism held that immigrants could qualify by embracing American values like equality. Critics argue this failed to address how to select among billions or the risks of brain drain and fading commitment to those propositions. Growing questions surround the credibility of these foundations as evidence mounts against them. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“If you want to win at American politics, you need a moral theory. Fortunately, there is a concept that is both more practical and more attractive to American idealism than either liberal “multiculturalism” or neoconservative “propositionism.””— My Ideology: Citizenism
“Neoconservatives have long claimed to dissent from this reigning multiculturalist orthodoxy by advocating a philosophy of immigration that observers have dubbed propositionism.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
How It Spread
By the 1990s, elites in media and academia dismissed immigration restrictionists without real debate. They suggested that deep thinkers overlooked long-term impacts, while ordinary folks obsessed over them. [1] The media raised alarms about white-collar jobs outsourced to Indians but stayed silent on blue-collar roles filled by millions of immigrants. This selective coverage helped spread the assumption that citizen favoritism was wrong, even as critics argued it ignored public concerns. The idea remains debated, with mounting evidence challenging its propagation. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“They don’t debate dissenters; they dismiss them. Their most effective ploy has been to insinuate that only shallow people think deeply about immigration.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
“That’s why the media treats the outsourcing of hundreds of thousands of white-collar jobs to English-speaking, high-IQ Indians as a respectable cause for alarm, but not the insourcing of tens of millions of immigrants to perform blue-collar and servile jobs.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
Resulting Policies
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It granted amnesty to illegal aliens and included employer sanctions. Businesses complained to lawmakers, and enforcement soon faded. [1] The Diversity Visa Lottery began issuing 50,000 green cards each year from up to 10 million applications. It rejected skills-based selection as discriminatory, favoring randomness instead. Critics argue these policies, built on the assumption, overlooked citizen interests, though the matter stays contested. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“the 1986 compromise—an amnesty for current illegal aliens combined with sanctions on lawbreaking employers to prevent future illegal immigration—looked fair on paper, but enforcement quickly evaporated as firms complained to their congressmen.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
“for a couple of decades, the government has been handing out 50,000 green cards annually via its Diversity Visa Lottery, for which it receives up to 10 million applications... Yet the federal government simply accepts applicants at random, because choosing would be discriminatory.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
Harm Caused
A 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences revealed stark costs. Immigrants with less than a high school education drained taxpayers by $90,000 net over their lifetimes. High school graduates cost $30,000. Without limits, critics argue, America could absorb hundreds of millions and mirror Third World conditions. [1] Public opinion was sidelined. Sixty percent of Americans viewed high immigration as a critical threat, compared to 14 percent of prominent figures. Elites ignored this gap, thwarting the public's will. Growing questions surround the harm caused by these disparities. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study found that immigrants with less than a high-school education each cost the taxpayers $90,000 net over their lifetimes and high-school graduates cost $30,000.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
“A 2002 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 60 percent of Americans consider the present level of entry to be a “critical threat to the vital interests of the United States,” compared with only 14 percent of prominent Americans.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
Downfall
Polls in the early 2000s began to expose cracks. A CBS survey found 75 percent of Americans dissatisfied with illegal immigration enforcement. Pew research showed 40 percent of Mexicans still in Mexico wanting to migrate. These figures highlighted public opposition and unsustainable pressures. [1] Mounting evidence challenges the assumption that laws should not favor citizens, with critics pointing to these realities as turning points. The debate continues, but growing dissent questions the orthodoxy. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“in a CBS News poll last October, 75 percent said the government was “not doing enough” to keep out illegal aliens... a poll by the Pew Hispanic Center found that over 40 percent of the 106 million Mexicans left in Mexico wish to follow them here.”— My Ideology: Citizenism
Sources
-
[1]
My Ideology: Citizenismreputable_journalism