A Sensible Vision for Immigration Reform
Good policy, but tricky politics.
The other day I responded to an X post from Fox News immigration reporter Bill Melugin with the opinion that a long-standing, non-criminal Mexican grandmother should not face detention and deportation for a couple of driving mistakes. Perhaps some right-wing accounts engaged with my post, because I’ve since faced a tsunami of hate-filled, xenophobic replies and quote tweets. In the interest of transparency, I want to articulate how I might approach reforming United States immigration policy.
First, there should be a one-time opportunity to acquire legal status for long-standing, non-criminal migrants who have lived in the U.S. for the past 15 years — all nationalities would be eligible. Perhaps you offer some kind of renewable visa or status, followed by a green card after a brief period, and then the normal pathway to citizenship. Some of the replies to my post expressed anger and frustration about undocumented migrants driving without insurance or valid licenses — that is a genuine problem, which providing more migrants with legal residency would help to address, because they would have less fear of interacting with the government, DMV offices, and car insurance brokers.
Second, new work and residency permits should be developed for citizens of Mexico and a gradually expanding list of Central American countries. In other words, labor mobility in the U.S. would increase for citizens of those countries. Why the special treatment? A few reasons:
Approximately 40% of irregular migrants currently in the U.S. are Mexican citizens. Many more hail from Central American countries. By providing those individuals with easier access to legal residency and employment, a significant number of existing undocumented migrants would have their status easily resolved. Increased legal avenues for securing employment in the U.S. would also reduce future irregular migration from those countries.
More Mexicans and Central Americans would then be able to send remittances back to their families and villages abroad, which would accelerate the socio-economic development, prosperity, and security of neighboring countries, and our continent as a whole. Expanding labor mobility in North America will ultimately make our entire continent more stable with organized crime, despair, and poverty replaced by hope and opportunity. Decades in the future, we might even consider a freedom of movement treaty for all citizens from these countries, like the ones that exist in Europe and between Australia and New Zealand. Such a treaty would also provide new opportunities for U.S. citizens to work or open businesses in increasingly prosperous Latin American countries.
We need the reliable, robust cooperation of Mexico and Central American countries to prevent another massive migration surge from around the world like we saw post-pandemic, and increased mobility for their citizens is one way to sustainably secure that support. The current calm at our southern border requires Mexican assistance at their southern border and airports, Panamanian help at the Darien Gap, and ongoing collaboration with all of North America’s governments on visa policies for nationals from outside the continent. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this regional cooperation in a world where flights are cheap and human trafficking is big business.
I do worry that diasporas from other parts of the world might perceive the above as unfair. Let me be clear: this is about addition, not subtraction. The U.S. would remain a welcoming place for migrants from all backgrounds, but it makes sense for the citizens of neighboring countries — who can also more easily come and go as our labor market evolves — to enjoy additional privileges, because continental prosperity and security are in our national interest.
Third, asylum laws need to be reformed. While I have limitless sympathy for those seeking more economic opportunity, the reality is that economic migrants do not qualify for asylum status. We must do a better job distinguishing between fake asylum claims contrived by so-called economic migrants and the real asylum claims of those individuals facing genuine persecution in their home countries. This will be hard and may require some painful choices about who can make asylum claims and where they can do so.
Fourth, firm-but-humane security measures — consistent with international law and treaties — should continue at the southern and northern borders. This means a well-funded Border Patrol held to the highest standards of professionalism and both virtual and physical barriers. It’s important to note that increasing labor mobility with Mexican and Central American countries is not the same thing as an “open border.” Citizens from those countries exercising new immigration rights would still need to present to CBP officers at airports and ports of entry with valid travel documents. I am not suggesting something like the borderless Schengen Area for North America, though you never know how politics will evolve in a generation.
Fifth, the U.S. would continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world with generous approaches to education and work visas, including multiple pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. The H-1B program, however, must be reformed so that it protects global talent from exploitation and doesn’t put downward pressure on salaries for workers already in the country.
I believe the aforementioned list is good policy that would simultaneously ensure our dynamic economy has an adequate labor supply and reduce some of the irregular immigration chaos that has frustrated voters over the past decade. The politics would be a little tricky as bad-faith accusations of open borders and excessive leniency would be thrown around, but transformational change will always be challenging to make happen, and it’s clear that the immigration status quo isn’t working for anyone but rabid xenophobes and unhinged populists.