The upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup in the U.S. has attracted millions of fans globally, highlighting discussions around border policies.
Stadiums across the country are filled with supporters sporting jerseys from nations like Argentina, Germany, Japan, and England. They chant in their own languages and bring their unique traditions. For instance, Scottish fans stroll around in kilts with bagpipes, while Dutch fans are a sea of orange. English supporters paint their faces with the St. George’s Cross. During this event, a lively celebration of cultural diversity unfolds. However, some advocates for open borders might overlook how this dynamic serves as a strong argument for countries to maintain their borders.
The World Cup allows us to relish distinct cultures, precisely because these fans hail from different places. If borders were to remain unrestricted and large groups of people moved permanently, those cultural differences could fade. The unique charm that makes events like the World Cup special could vanish into a homogenous culture devoid of historical significance.
Critics often accuse conservatives of opposing mass migration and open borders due to a perceived disdain for other cultures, labeling them as racist or xenophobic. Yet, they may be failing to acknowledge or outright misrepresenting a crucial point. Advocating for closed borders means valuing the differences between cultures enough to want them preserved. Open migration could blur the rich identities of nations into an undistinguished blend.
People admire culinary delights in their own countries, like the appreciation for Italian cuisine in Italy or Japanese efficiency in Japan. Fans from around the globe express admiration for the grandness of the U.S. One notable moment came during the Netherlands vs. Japan match, when a Japanese fan shared his thoughts on Texas.
“Texas is good. Everything is big!” he responded, smiling.
Although some might squirm at the stereotype, as a longtime Texan, I find pride in his words. It’s true—everything does seem bigger here, and I hope it stays that way. That doesn’t mean I hold extreme views; it simply reflects my love for my origins.
The World Cup is fantastic because it gives us a glimpse into other cultures while also introducing them to ours. Yet, that doesn’t imply these visitors should become permanent residents. If many fans remained and brought their entire communities, the change could be irreversible. The stability of neighborhoods would shift. Schools might alter their curricula. Moreover, social dynamics and trust could erode. Texas, for example, is already experiencing changes due to the influx of H-1B visa holders and other migrants. Communities that once thrived on shared cultures are now becoming fragmented.
Borders provide a framework for nations to manage the pace and type of changes they face. They allow for welcoming tourists while rejecting the idea of open settlement. Without such filters, the once-exciting vibrancy of events like the World Cup could lead to everyday societal friction.
Every nation possesses unique traits honed over centuries. Open borders often dilute these traits when immigration numbers become overwhelming, leading to a situation where the host culture has to adapt more than newcomers do.
For years, many have idealized migrants as hard-working individuals fleeing hardship, often casting them as victims, which lets them evade tougher questions. If migrants truly admire the benefits of the U.S., why aren’t they working to create similar conditions in their own countries?
This narrative has increasingly become tiresome. The U.S. shouldn’t serve as a refuge for those unwilling to strive for improvements in their own homelands. If they failure to do so for their own, they likely won’t contribute positively to a country where they are not rooted.
Hosting the World Cup while the U.S. marks its 250th anniversary underscores this reality. Mass migration—both legal and illegal—has already transformed numerous neighborhoods in just one generation. Advocating for the preservation of our culture doesn’t equate to an outright ban on immigration; rather, it acknowledges that nations shouldn’t have to dissolve to fit a misleading notion of a utopian society.
America has thrived through significant challenges, partly due to a shared culture and values. Flooding the nation with millions who might bring conflicting traditions could undermine these shared ties. If we don’t guard against such dilution, future generations risk losing the bonds that unite them, and the promised vision of a shining city could dim.
