Standing outside a U.S. Immigration office near Los Angeles, Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam delivered a raw, on the ground commentary that cut through the immigration debate and put one central question back where it belongs: Should Americans decide who comes into America, and under what terms?
In his live segment, Bergquam contrasted legal immigrants who follow the process and openly express love for the country with individuals who reject basic American principles while still demanding entry or even citizenship. His message was blunt. Legal immigration through the front door matters. Illegal entry through the back door does not. And not everyone who asks to be here is coming with good intentions.
WATCH:
Ben Bergquam Live Outside an ICE Office
Bergquam’s segment was filmed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, a physical setting that reinforced his point. This was not a studio debate or a polished panel discussion. It was the actual place where immigration law is enforced and where legal immigrants line up to go through the citizenship process.
He repeatedly framed the issue in simple language. Should Americans not decide who comes into the country? Should people who enter illegally be allowed to stay? He pointed to the visible contrast. On one side, people waiting in line, going through the legal process. On the other, those who cross illegally and bypass the system entirely.
“This is the place they come in the front door into America,” he said, explaining that legal immigrants follow a defined process. “Same thing. Come through the front doors. Legal immigration. Not illegal immigration.”
For Bergquam, this distinction is not symbolic. It is foundational.
The Front Door Versus the Back Door
Throughout the commentary, Bergquam returned again and again to the image of the front door and the back door. The front door represents lawful entry, background checks, interviews, and an expressed desire to become part of the American civic culture. The back door represents illegal crossings, document fraud, and, in his words, people “breaking into our country.”
“People that are doing it the right way,” he said, thanking one man who had come legally. “Come through the front doors. People that are breaking in illegally into our country, they’re getting deported. ICE is just doing their job.”
This framing directly challenges the way corporate media often presents immigration enforcement. Bergquam explicitly called out CNN, MSNBC, and what he described as “fake news” outlets for blurring or erasing the difference between legal immigration and illegal entry.
To him, the issue is not whether immigration should exist. It is whether law, consent, and national sovereignty should exist.
Two Interviews, Two Visions of America
A central moment in the segment came when Bergquam referenced two interviews conducted on site. The first was a man from Iran who had escaped that country and came to the United States seeking freedom. Bergquam described him as someone who loved this country and wanted to become a citizen.
“Watch these two interviews,” he said. “First guy from Iran escaped Iran to come here, wants the freedom versus the second guy. Which of these guys should be a citizen, and which shouldn’t?”
The contrast was meant to highlight intention. One man saw America as a refuge of liberty. The other, according to Bergquam, could not or would not affirm basic American values. Bergquam pressed the second man with questions about the First Amendment and whether he could say “God bless ICE” or “God bless America.” The man resisted.
For Bergquam, that resistance mattered.
“Not everyone that’s coming in has the good intentions for America,” he said. “We got to be wise about that too. Not everyone that comes in and raises their right hand is actually here for good intentions.”
Citizenship, Culture, and Allegiance
The commentary went beyond border security and into the deeper issue of citizenship. Bergquam questioned whether someone who rejects core freedoms, or who cannot express goodwill toward the country they want to join, should be granted the privileges of American citizenship at all.
He challenged the idea that citizenship is merely paperwork.
Citizenship, in this framing, is allegiance. It is gratitude. It is acceptance of the constitutional system and the cultural foundations that sustain it, including free speech and religious liberty.
When Bergquam asked, “Can you say God bless ICE?” he was not merely provoking. He was testing whether the individual recognized the legitimacy of American law enforcement and the nation’s right to enforce its borders.
To Bergquam, the inability or refusal to do so raised a red flag.
ICE Enforcement and National Sovereignty
A recurring theme was defense of ICE agents doing their jobs. Bergquam made a point to say plainly that deportations are not acts of cruelty but acts of law enforcement.
“ICE is just doing their job,” he said. “You come through the back, you’re getting deported.”
He also suggested that deportation should not be limited only to those who entered illegally, but should include those who, even if technically lawful, show hostility to the nation they are trying to join.
“All illegals need to be deported,” he said in his post accompanying the footage. “But many people that are here legally need to be deported as well, and they sure as hell shouldn’t be given citizenship if they can’t say God bless ICE, and God bless our President.”
This is a call for a values based immigration standard, not just a procedural one.
Why This Commentary Resonates Now
Bergquam’s live commentary resonates because it taps into a growing public frustration that immigration policy has drifted away from both law and cultural cohesion. For millions of Americans, the issue is no longer abstract. Communities are bearing the cost of illegal entry, overwhelmed services, and rising crime concerns, while legal immigrants wait months or years to follow the rules.
By placing himself physically at an immigration office, Bergquam underscored what many feel has been ignored. There is already a system. There are already lines. There are already people doing it the right way.
His segment reframed the national debate away from slogans and back toward a core question. Does a nation have the right to decide who joins it?
Bergquam’s answer was unmistakable.
America does.