Immigration remains in the headlines due to the continuing crisis at America’s southern border. Last week, the Biden administration proposed a new rule placing extensive limits on who can claim asylum, especially if they enter the country unlawfully. This policy will take effect on May 11 and replace Title 42, a Trump administration rule that sought a similar goal, albeit as a health regulation.

Human rights organizations immediately criticized the Biden administration for continuing the approach of its predecessor, hurling similar accusations made against the Trump policies of racism , xenophobia, and cruelty. Yet the Biden administration’s actions make clear that bigotry and sadism hardly provide a sufficient explanation for more restrictive immigration policies.

One can believe many things contrary to such animus while still thinking the Trump and Biden rules are right. One can affirm that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are universal, namely that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. One can think that governments exist to protect those rights. One can believe, then, that these principles apply to those migrating here and seeking entry. Moreover, one can sympathize with the plight of those coming to our border and understand that they have faced extreme hardship economically and politically — all while not thinking we should essentially have open borders.

Those who support limits on immigration recognize a fact the Left seems to ignore: Our government exists to protect the rights of its own citizens first and foremost. The Left’s utopian view of human politics suggests this limiting principle doesn’t apply to our government, that the U.S. and its communities possess unlimited resources. Therefore, according to the Left, our government should right every injustice done to anyone around the world, providing an alternative life of fairness and prosperity to all.

But we cannot accomplish so monumental a task. Nor should we even try. We lack the manpower and financial resources to be the world’s savior.

That doesn’t mean we should deny any and all attempts at justice, even mercy, for those in need and seeking to come to our country. But it does mean we risk undermining the good we can and already do if we try and reach beyond our ability.

For example, our inability to screen persons entering the country illegally adequately poses dangers to the safety of our citizens and legal residents. Strains on economic resources might lower the ability of our most vulnerable to carve out a sustainable, humane living. And we legitimately must ask the question of civic education — whether we can inculcate our principles and habits of free self-government in relation to mass or limited immigration.

Considering these issues requires two virtues we sorely lack. First, it requires humility. We are not God, much as we’ve tried to replace him since the Garden of Eden. We only can do so much, and what we can do will be done fallibly. We must also apply the virtue of prudence. Prudence knows how to achieve the best possible end, given the circumstances. It, then, neither denies that justice exists nor disregards the limitations of time and place. Prudence is the essence of statesmanship in its melding of principle and practice.

Thus, we should applaud the sensibleness of the new Biden administration rule. Brute facts should not make us brutes. Nor should good intentions pave a way to dystopia. We should not make that false choice. Instead, a policy that combines recognition of common humanity and the constraints on particular governments should inform wider reform to the immigration system. But that would take the humility and prudence of someone currently missing from our national politics: a statesman.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.