White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller laid out a blunt assessment of how American immigration was forever altered by the 1965 law during an appearance on The Will Cain Show on December 9, 2025. Miller told Cain that the law effectively rewired our immigration system from one that prioritized assimilation and national cohesion to one that created a global open-door experiment with consequences we still live with today.
Miller argued that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act tore down the old national-origins system and unleashed the single-largest experiment on a society in human history, bringing in what he described as tens of millions of immigrants and their descendants. He warned that policymakers treated immigration like an abstract virtue rather than a sober national-security and assimilation question, and he pointed to the massive demographic and cultural shifts that have followed since 1965.
He didn’t shy away from uncomfortable examples, saying that when people come here from failed states or places that can’t sustain basic institutions, it’s naïve to expect different outcomes immediately upon arrival in America. Miller singled out persistent social pathologies — from chronic welfare dependency to public-safety problems and weak assimilation — as outcomes conservatives must be willing to name and fix rather than politely ignore.
Miller also attacked modern myths like unconditional birthright citizenship, calling it a perverse incentive that can reward lawbreaking and create a multigenerational welfare underclass. That kind of plain-speaking is exactly what the country needs: honest policy debates instead of feel-good platitudes that mask real human and fiscal costs.
This debate matters because it goes to the heart of whether America remains a nation that expects newcomers to assimilate and contribute or becomes a megaphone for multinational identity politics. The open-borders crowd and their media allies want to keep the conversation shallow — comfortable moralizing without confronting the empirical results of 60 years of lax controls. Miller’s remarks force the question: will conservatives offer serious, enforceable solutions or continue to play defense?
For those of us who love this country, Miller’s message is a call to action. We should be pushing policy that prioritizes assimilation, merit, rule-of-law enforcement, and sovereignty — not policies that incentivize lawbreaking or dilute the civic bonds that hold prosperous societies together. Politicians who refuse to grapple with the 1965 legacy are failing the American people and betraying the promise of a unified, secure nation.
Hardworking Americans deserve leaders who will defend borders, reform immigration law, and restore the principle that citizenship must be earned and cherished. Stephen Miller’s willingness to speak plainly on national television shows conservatives can lead this conversation with clarity and courage, and we should rally behind policies that restore common-sense limits and safeguard the future of the American experiment.
