In the performative theater of modern U.S. immigration policy, few figures have shouted louder about “illegals,” “chain migration,” and “undesirables” than Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Mark Rubio, and Kristi Noem. They’ve authored or supported some of the most draconian immigration enforcement in modern history—calling immigrants “invaders,” slashing asylum access, scoffing at the notion of refugee protections, separating families, and openly mocking the concept of family reunification.
But history has a long memory. If the laws these self-styled “patriots” champion today had existed during their own families’ migrations, their ancestors would have faced closed doors, denied visas, and likely deportation.
But surely these nativists are, well, native? Not exactly. A closer look at their ancestral records—and the standards of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—raises an inconvenient question: Would they have let themselves in?
Donald Trump: Grandson of a Draft Dodger and Alleged Brothel-Keeper
Friedrich Trump—originally “Drumpf,” a name he changed to “Trump” upon entering the United States—was Donald’s grandfather. He emigrated from the Kingdom of Bavaria in 1885 at age 16, reportedly to dodge mandatory military service. After arriving in the U.S., he followed the Klondike Gold Rush to the Pacific Northwest and then Alaska, where he opened restaurants that were widely understood to be fronts for prostitution. Local newspapers of the time even noted the availability of “sporting ladies” at Friedrich’s establishments.
Sidebar: “President Drumpf.” It just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
In 1905, after returning to Bavaria with his fortune and applying for repatriation, German authorities rejected his request and ordered him to leave his home country. The government determined that he had emigrated illegally to avoid mandatory military service, and under Bavarian law, this made him ineligible to regain citizenship or reside there. I’d argue that leaving your country of citizenship to avoid military service is pretty much the opposite of “patriotic.”
Under today’s INA, Donald Trump’s grandfather Friedrich Trump likely would not have been admitted to the United States:
- Prostitution-Related Inadmissibility – INA §212(a)(2)(D)
Bars admission to anyone who “is coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years.” Contemporary reports from the Klondike Gold Rush era describe Friedrich’s restaurants as places where “sporting women” were available—an era-appropriate euphemism for sex work. If verified, this would constitute grounds for inadmissibility under current law. - Draft Dodging / Good Moral Character – INA §101(f), §212(a)(5)(A)
While modern U.S. immigration law doesn’t explicitly ban foreign draft dodgers, Friedrich was stripped of his Bavarian citizenship for illegally emigrating to avoid military service. Under current standards, this could be used to challenge his application based on failure to demonstrate good moral character—relevant for naturalization and some visa categories. It also could raise issues under grounds of misrepresentation or unlawful presence. - Lack of Clear Visa Eligibility – INA §212(a)(7)(A)
Today, Friedrich would have needed to qualify for a valid visa. As a 16-year-old with no formal education, job offer, or family sponsor in the U.S., it is unlikely he would qualify under any existing visa category—employment-based, family-based, or diversity lottery.
The Irony? Friedrich Trump would likely have been denied entry—and possibly removed—based on his immigration record, lack of documentation, and reported involvement in vice-related businesses.
A further irony? Friedrich Trump succumbed to pneumonia during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic—highlighting a personal connection to a global health crisis. Now, his grandson’s administration has taken dramatic action by removing all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices just last week—a move that dismantles key pandemic preparedness and vaccine oversight just as health threats loom large. At the same time, more than 1,300 CDC staff have received layoff notices as part of massive cuts to federal health agencies. It’s a jarring contrast: The same family lost its patriarch to one of the deadliest pandemics in history, yet today the administration is actively weakening the institutions designed to prevent another.
Stephen Miller: Great-Grandson of Uneducated Asylum Seekers
Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor and the key architect of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies—including the travel bans—has maternal Jewish ancestors, the Glosser family (also spelled Glotzer), who fled anti-Semitic pogroms in the Russian Empire (now Belarus) in the early 1900s.
Wolf‑Leib Glosser, Miller’s maternal great‑grandfather, arrived at Ellis Island in 1903 reportedly with $8 in his pocket—poor, unskilled, and with no English—matching the profile of immigrants Miller has criticized and demonized in his political rhetoric and policy positions. Wolf‑Leib initially worked in sweatshops and as a street peddler, sending money back to bring over his elder son Nathan, and later the rest of his family, including his brother Sam, in what amounted to an early form of chain migration.
They settled in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Wolf‑Leib and Nathan opened a haberdashery, later expanding into a chain of supermarkets and discount department stores run by Sam and the next generations. This enterprise grew significantly, eventually being listed on the American Stock Exchange and employing thousands of people.
Under today’s Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), that trajectory—from penniless asylum seeker to successful American entrepreneur—would likely have been impossible. The very system that once welcomed the Glosser family would now shut them out. Here’s how today’s INA would have denied Wolf‑Leib Glosser the chance to even begin.
- Public Charge Ground – INA §212(a)(4)
Excludes any immigrant “likely to become a public charge.” Without formal education, English skills, or financial resources, Glosser would have struggled to meet today’s rigorous financial criteria—especially under the Trump-era expanded Public Charge rule that penalized low-income, unskilled immigrants who might rely on public benefits. - Asylum – INA §208
Excludes most asylum seekers who cannot meet complex eligibility and procedural hurdles. Glosser fled religious and ethnic persecution that would generally qualify under asylum law. But under today’s restrictions—including transit bans, one-year filing deadlines, and firm resettlement bars—he likely would have been denied protection under policies championed by his own descendant. - Affidavit of Support Requirement – INA §213A
Requires a financial sponsor who meets 125% of the federal poverty guideline. Glosser had no such sponsor when he arrived. His early employment as a sweatshop laborer or street peddler would not have satisfied the income requirement to sponsor family members like his son or brother—family reunification that today would be denied. - Documentation Requirements – INA §212(a)(7)(A)
Bars entry to anyone without a valid immigrant visa, passport, and lawful status. In 1903, no such documents were required. Today, Glosser would need to qualify for a visa under an existing pathway—employment-based, family-based, or the diversity lottery. Based on his circumstances, he likely would not qualify under any.
The Irony: Stephen Miller, who crafted hardline immigration policies and advocated restrictions on chain migration and public‑charge applicants, exists in America because his family—unskilled newcomers with no English—benefited from a more humane asylum policy than the one he helped dismantle.
Tom Homan: The Enforcer Descended from Chain Migration
Tom Homan, White House Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations and a staunch opponent of “chain migration,” has proudly claimed his family came to America “the right way”—but historical records show his ancestors arrived from Germany in the late 1800s, long before U.S. immigration law even required visas or literacy tests. Back then, everyone came to America “the right way.”
Homan’s great-grandfather, Friedrich Homan (1872–1946), and great-grandmother, Ina Ellen Lane (1877–1961), settled in Mercer County, Ohio, where Friedrich worked as a farmer. Their son, Theodore Henry Homan, Jr. (1886–1973), married Matilda Braun (1894–1980), and continued the agricultural tradition. Their son, Thomas Theodore Homan, Sr. (1930–2007), later became a real estate broker in Coldwater, Ohio, and with his wife Helen Dues (1929–2023), raised a family that included Tom Homan.
Under today’s INA:
- No Skills, No English, No Problem – INA §203(b)
The German immigrants of the 19th century came to America to start their new lives with few resources. Today, INA §203(b) favors immigrants with advanced degrees, extraordinary ability, or job offers. Homan’s forebears would not have qualified. - Chain Migration Restrictions (Family-Based Immigration) – INA §203(c)
Homan’s ancestors arrived during a time when having a relative in the U.S. could open the door to immigration. If their journey happened today, they’d likely be labeled “chain migrants” and face visa backlogs stretching more than a decade. - Visa Requirement – INA §212(a)(7)
Mandates that all immigrants possess valid visas prior to entry. Homan’s ancestors arrived before visas were required, but under current law, failure to obtain a visa would bar their admission. - Public Charge Ground – INA §212(a)(4)
Excludes any immigrant “likely to become a public charge.” Without formal education, English skills, or financial resources, agricultural families like the Homans could struggle to meet today’s rigorous financial criteria, especially under expanded rules penalizing low-income, unskilled immigrants.
The Irony: Although Tom Homan has become one of the most vocal critics of “chain migration,” his own family’s presence in the United States was made possible by precisely that process. His German ancestors arrived at a time when immigration laws were minimal, and extended families commonly migrated together or followed one another—a system that laid the foundation for Homan’s own life in America. Without chain migration, it’s likely Tom Homan wouldn’t be here at all. Put simply, Homan’s family tree would be chopped at the roots under the policies he enforces.
Marco Rubio: Son of “Chain Migrants” Who Wouldn’t Qualify Today
Senator Marco Rubio has frequently aligned himself with hardline immigration policies and rhetoric, supporting tighter border controls, opposing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and distancing himself from any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He once co-sponsored the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill—only to walk away from it under conservative pressure. He now regularly criticizes “chain migration,” the very mechanism that brought his own family to the United States.
Rubio’s parents, Mario Rubio Reina and Oriales Rubio, emigrated from Cuba to the U.S. in 1956—before the Cuban Revolution. That’s right: they were not fleeing Fidel Castro or political persecution, as Rubio often implies, but left during the Batista regime for economic opportunity. In fact, Rubio had to revise his own official biography in 2011 after it was revealed that his family had not fled communism as refugees but had instead come to the U.S. as ordinary immigrants.
The Rubios were admitted legally and later benefited from family reunification policies and favorable immigration treatment toward Cubans, especially after the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. But under today’s Immigration and Nationality Act, their admission—and subsequent naturalization—would not have been so smooth.
Under today’s INA:
- Pre-Revolution Migration Doesn’t Qualify for Asylum – INA §208
Rubio’s parents arrived before Castro’s rise, meaning they were not fleeing political persecution. Without a qualifying fear of persecution or harm, they would not be eligible for asylum or refugee status today—and certainly not for the Cuban Adjustment Act’s fast-tracked residency pathway, which came a decade later.
- Public Charge Rule – INA §212(a)(4)
Rubio’s parents arrived with limited education, no advanced degrees, and without high-skilled employment. They initially worked in low-wage service jobs—Mario as a bartender, Oriales as a hotel maid—positions unlikely to meet current financial sponsorship or self-sufficiency standards under the expanded public charge rule.
- Chain Migration – INA §203(a)
The very system of family-based immigration that allowed the Rubio family to sponsor relatives later on is now derided by the senator as a threat to American values. If today’s caps, visa quotas, and wait times were applied, Rubio’s extended family might still be waiting in Havana for their number to be called.
- Misrepresentation – INA §212(a)(6)(C)
While not a legal violation, Rubio’s repeated mischaracterization of his family’s migration as “fleeing Castro” has raised questions of political opportunism. If such discrepancies appeared in immigration applications today—particularly in asylum or refugee claims—they could be grounds for denial or revocation.
The Irony: Marco Rubio owes his American citizenship, career, and platform to an immigration system that welcomed low-income Cuban migrants and allowed families to reunite and build a better life. Today, he advocates dismantling that very system—vilifying “chain migration,” supporting restrictive public charge rules, and opposing protections for asylum seekers. Had his parents tried to immigrate under the laws Rubio now supports, they may never have been allowed in at all.
Kristi Noem: Norwegian Roots, No English, No Degree
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has been a vocal opponent of undocumented immigration and a sharp critic of asylum seekers—even though her own family descends from Norwegian immigrants who arrived in the early 20th century.
Noem’s great-grandfather, Alf Harold Bergan, came to America seeking better opportunities and built a steady life through work and community involvement. Growing up in rural South Dakota, he completed his education, co-owned a gas station, and ran a small agricultural spraying business. He worked over 20 years as a rural letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service and participated in local church and community activities like coaching softball. His move to America provided a foundation that enabled future generations to have opportunities.
Under today’s INA:
- Visa Requirement – INA §212(a)(7):
Alf immigrated before visas were required, but under current law, failing to obtain a valid visa before entry would bar admission. - No Skills, No English, No Degree – INA §203(b):
Alf had no formal degree and limited English when he arrived. Today, preference is given to immigrants with advanced education or job offers, which he would not meet.
The Irony: This background shaped Noem’s very existence—without her great-grandfather’s immigration to America and the life he built, she may never have been born or had the opportunities that followed. The irony is that her family was welcomed into an America that made room for rural, non-English-speaking, working-class immigrants, while today’s system—shaped in large part by Noem’s own allies—would slam that door shut.
The Rest of the Parade
Larry Kudlow, former Director of the National Economic Council under Trump and current Fox Business host, descends from Eastern European Jews—refugees who would likely have been barred under the Trump administration’s Muslim-style refugee restrictions. Sebastian Gorka, Hungarian-born far-right commentator and former Deputy Assistant to President Trump, left his U.S. government role amid growing scrutiny over his reported ties to extremist organizations; under INA §212(a)(3)(B), which excludes individuals linked to terrorist or totalitarian groups, he might not be admissible today. And then there are Mick Mulvaney, former White House Chief of Staff and current political commentator, and Steve Bannon, ex-White House Chief Strategist turned far-right media personality—both descendants of Irish immigrants once derided as “papist trash” and routinely excluded by the very nativist ideologies they now echo. Had any of them arrived today, they would be treated like the very people they now vilify—locked in detention, separated from their children, denied hearings, fast-tracked for deportation.
The Irony is the Point
What unites these anti-immigration hardliners is more than hypocrisy—it’s a profound historical amnesia. The Immigration and Nationality Act, in its current and recent forms, would have rendered their own ancestors inadmissible, deportable, or permanently exiled. Yet, they push policies that would bar the very people whose sacrifices made their lives—and legacies—possible.
By targeting today’s asylum seekers, refugees, and low-income migrants, they aren’t protecting America—they’re rejecting the immigrant spirit that built it.
Their message is unmistakable: “We’re inside. Now pull up the ladder.”
So, the next time one of these so-called “patriots” lectures the world about “the right way to come here,” remember:
They wouldn’t let themselves in.