We Believe:

A sovereign nation has the right and the duty to determine who may enter its borders, under what conditions, and in what numbers. The Founders understood that a nation’s stability depends upon a shared culture, a common language, and a unified sense of identity. When immigration is unmanaged, unvetted, or imposed without the consent of the people, the result is not harmony but fragmentation, conflict, and the erosion of national cohesion.

We affirm that immigration policy must serve the interests of the American people — not international agencies, global corporations, or political elites. For decades, the federal government has failed to secure the border, enforce existing laws, or protect communities from the consequences of mass migration. This failure has strained public resources, destabilized neighborhoods, and accelerated cultural and political divisions across the nation.

We believe that a responsible immigration system requires secure borders, strict enforcement, and a temporary halt to all forms of immigration until the nation can restore order and evaluate long‑term needs. A nation that cannot control its borders cannot preserve its sovereignty. A nation that imports instability cannot maintain peace. And a nation that abandons its cultural foundations cannot endure.

Our position is rooted in constitutional authority, historical experience, and the moral responsibility of a government to protect its own citizens. Immigration must be guided by prudence, not ideology; by national interest, not global agendas; and by the will of the American people, not the demands of international institutions.

Plank 1: Secure the Border and Restore National Sovereignty

We support the immediate and complete securing of the United States border. A sovereign nation must control who enters its territory. For too long, political leaders have allowed porous borders, inconsistent enforcement, and policies that encourage illegal entry. This has placed communities at risk, overwhelmed local resources, and undermined the rule of law.

We affirm that border security is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. The failure to enforce immigration laws violates that duty and endangers the safety and stability of the nation. A secure border is not optional — it is essential to national survival.

Plank 2: Establish a Total Moratorium on Immigration

We call for increased deployment of American troops along the southern border and the immediate establishment of a total moratorium on all immigration. Our nation must regain full control over its borders, protect the safety of our communities, and preserve the cultural foundations that shaped America’s identity.

We believe that the United States has the sovereign right to determine who enters and under what conditions, and that immigration should be paused until our nation’s security, economic stability, and cultural cohesion are fully restored. A temporary halt is not an act of hostility, but an act of national self‑preservation — a necessary measure to restore order, evaluate long‑term needs, and ensure that immigration policy serves the interests of the American people.

A moratorium allows the nation to regain control, assess the consequences of decades of failed policy, and rebuild the unity and stability required for a healthy society. No responsible government continues a policy that undermines its own security or fractures its own people.

Plank 3: End Illegal Immigration and Enforce Existing Law

We support the full enforcement of all immigration laws already on the books. Sanctuary policies, selective enforcement, and political interference have created a system where the law is applied unevenly and often ignored entirely. This undermines public trust and rewards unlawful behavior.

We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped through firm enforcement, mandatory E‑Verify, and the elimination of incentives that encourage unlawful entry. A nation that refuses to enforce its laws invites further violation.

Plank 4: End Participation in the U.N. Refugee Program

We oppose the United States’ participation in the United Nations refugee resettlement program. This program allows international agencies to place refugee populations into American communities without the consent of local citizens or officials. Such decisions must be made by the American people and their elected representatives — not by global institutions.

We further recognize that the continuation of the U.N. refugee resettlement program introduces serious concerns for national stability. Many refugee populations come from regions marked by civil conflict, sectarian violence, or long‑standing political rivalries. When these groups are resettled into American communities without local consent or adequate vetting, the tensions and divisions of those conflicts can be carried with them.

This process has been described by many analysts as the “importation of conflict,” in which global instability is relocated into domestic neighborhoods. Communities that were once peaceful may suddenly find themselves navigating disputes, rivalries, or cultural clashes that originated thousands of miles away.

In a nation already experiencing deep cultural fragmentation, large‑scale resettlement accelerates balkanization. When incompatible political histories or unresolved hostilities are placed side‑by‑side, the result can be increased tension, reduced cohesion, and greater strain on local institutions.

A responsible government must prioritize the safety, stability, and unity of its own people. Ending participation in the U.N. refugee program is a necessary step toward restoring local control, protecting national security, and preventing the escalation of instability within our borders.

Plank 5: The 1965 Immigration Act and Its Long‑Term Impact

We recognize that modern immigration challenges cannot be understood without acknowledging the profound changes introduced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, commonly known as the Hart–Celler Act. Before 1965, U.S. immigration law used a national‑origins quota system that heavily favored European countries. The 1965 Act abolished those quotas and replaced them with a system prioritizing extended‑family sponsorship and immigration from developing nations.

At the time, the bill’s supporters assured the American public that the legislation would not significantly alter the cultural or demographic character of the nation. Senator Ted Kennedy stated that the bill would “not upset the ethnic mix of our society.” Other sponsors echoed similar assurances, promising that the law would not lead to major demographic shifts or fundamentally reshape the nation’s cultural landscape.

However, the long‑term effects of the 1965 Act were far more sweeping than its authors predicted. By prioritizing extended‑family migration and removing national‑origin quotas, the law dramatically increased immigration from regions that had previously sent relatively few immigrants to the United States. This shift reshaped immigration patterns, accelerated population growth, and contributed to cultural, political, and social changes that continue to influence the nation today.

Plank 6: Demographic Change and Its Implications

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the demographic composition of the United States has changed significantly since the passage of the 1965 Act.

• In 1965, the U.S. population was overwhelmingly composed of Americans of European ancestry.
• By the early 2020s, the Census Bureau reported that non‑Hispanic white children were no longer the majority of the U.S. school‑age population, marking the first time in American history that this demographic group had become a minority among children.
• Census projections also show that the overall U.S. population is on track to become “majority‑minority” in the coming decades, driven largely by immigration patterns established after 1965.

From our platform’s perspective, these changes were not the result of natural evolution but of deliberate policy decisions made without the informed consent of the American people. The promises made in 1965 — that the Act would not significantly alter the nation’s demographic balance — proved inaccurate.

We believe that any future immigration policy must be crafted with honesty, foresight, and a clear understanding of how immigration affects national unity, cultural cohesion, and social stability. The lessons of 1965 must guide us toward policies that protect the sovereignty of the United States and preserve the integrity of its communities.

Plank 7: Protect Cultural Stability and Prevent Balkanization

We affirm that immigration policy must preserve — not undermine — the cultural cohesion of the nation. When immigration occurs on a scale that exceeds a nation’s ability to assimilate newcomers, the result is fragmentation rather than unity.

America is already experiencing deep cultural and political division. Mass immigration, combined with refugee resettlement and inconsistent enforcement, has accelerated this fragmentation and contributed to the rise of parallel communities with conflicting values, loyalties, and identities.

A stable nation requires a shared culture, a common language, and a unified sense of purpose. Immigration policy must strengthen these bonds, not weaken them.

Plank 8: Restore Constitutional Authority Over Immigration

We affirm that the Constitution grants the federal government the authority — and the obligation — to regulate immigration. This authority must be exercised in a manner that protects the sovereignty of the states and the rights of the people.

Local communities must have a voice in decisions that affect their safety, resources, and cultural stability. Immigration policy cannot be dictated by international bodies, activist courts, or federal agencies acting without accountability.

A nation that controls its borders controls its future. A nation that loses control of its borders loses everything.