Immigration
Summary
We support creating a pathway for legal residency for immigrants who are here illegally. We also support increasing the merit-based immigration portion of the immigration system and increasing the scale of the existing guest worker program.
We also support securing our southern border against illegal immigration using whatever approach is most cost effective and humane. We also support reforming the asylum system so that it cannot be used to undermine efforts to control illegal immigration.
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Background
America is, predominantly, a nation of immigrants.
We owe much of our vitality as a nation to our ability to welcome and assimilate immigrants. Our own success as a nation has created a situation in which we find ourselves attracting more immigrants than we are politically willing to accept. The gradual growth of state supported, social welfare programs in America has also made it economically unsustainable to have essentially open borders.
Our efforts to restrict immigration have led to a vast underground economy of illegal workers. We need a way to control our borders. We also need to find a way to treat fairly those who have immigrated illegally, and put an end to the underground economy of undocumented immigrants. This system also needs to be fair to those who have or wish to immigrate legally.
A Fair Path to Legal Residency
We propose creating a path to legal residency, for immigrants who are here illegally and who have no criminal record. We have not included a path to citizenship, because we believe that to be a politically insurmountable hurdle. The quid pro quo for this path is a period of time before full legal residency, during which those currently here illegally will pay a surtax, above their normal taxes, to federal, state, and local governments. To do otherwise would be unfair to immigrants who are here legally. This tax rate could be set high enough so that it destroys the incentive for illegal immigrants to come here for purely economic reasons.
These immigrants would also be required to remain law abiding or face possible deportation. Enforcement requires that we make employers liable to verify the immigration status of their employees. The program described above would be a one-time option. Any immigrant who is here illegally and who had not registered for the program within six months of its initiation would be subject to deportation.
We also believe that the U.S. should expand the formal guest worker program that allows workers to enter the U.S. and work for a fixed period of time and then return home. Undocumented workers who do not wish to enter the transition program for legal residency would be eligible to apply for the guest worker program or any other existing lawful status. This means, for example, that they could also apply for asylum and, if it is granted, they would have a path to citizenship.
In addition, subsidized health care insurance would only be available to citizens and legal residents. Immigrants on the path to acquiring full legal status, and guest workers, would be required to purchase health care insurance on their own, unless provided by their employers. Failure to do so would also be grounds for deportation or would trigger a fine sufficient to ensure that all immigrants in the program complied.
During the transition period, the children of immigrants in the transition program would be eligible for public education at all levels, including in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.
If we adopt this approach, it should reduce the demand for immigrating into the U.S. illegally and provide a reasonable basis for transitioning to a fully legal work force.
This would not require mass deportation because most individuals would self-deport if they could not find employment. Note: this requires a much more aggressive approach to requiring employers to verify the immigration status of their employees.
Special Skills and Immigration (The Merit-Based System)
America disadvantages itself in a number of ways by restricting the ability of those with valuable skills in science and technology from immigrating to the U.S. This is particularly true for those who have received advanced degrees in the U.S. and then have to leave. We believe that we should expand immigration opportunities for this source of talent. This approach is consistent with a more merit-based approach to immigration similar to that adopted by Canada. We support significantly expanding this part of the immigration system.
Sanctuary Cities
The dispute over sanctuary cities is largely a product of our inability to reach a reasonable compromise on the issues of granting legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. Local authorities in some cities fear that undocumented residents may be reluctant to cooperate with the police in solving non-immigration-based crimes, if they fear being deported. Conversely, those who want local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fear that without this cooperation criminals who are here illegally, including gang members, may elude the legal system. Recognizing that cities that adopt a sanctuary status have legitimate concerns that prompt them to do so should not be taken as an endorsement of the approach. What evidence there is on the question appears to indicate that crime rates in sanctuary cities are not significantly different from those in cities that do not adopt this approach.
From a completely separate perspective, imposing the responsibility on local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law is an example of imposing another unfunded mandate on state and local governments. As such, conservatives should oppose imposing this obligation on local governments. We believe that the proposals outlined above for granting legal status to those who are currently here illegally, but who have no serious criminal record, would make the issue of sanctuary cities effectively moot.
Voting and Citizenship
Federal elections are restricted to U.S. Citizens. A few local governments have opened their elections to non-citizens. We oppose doing this for a number of reasons. First, obtaining political support for immigration reform requires that the political impact of immigration be gradual and modest. Otherwise, the party likely to be disadvantaged by increased immigration will prevent it from happening. Second, allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections may cause confusion that will result in non-citizens inadvertently voting in federal elections. If a non-citizen immigrant is found to have voted in a federal election it could have terrible consequences for their immigration status.
The Asylum System
The U.S., along with many other nations, offers asylum to anyone who presents themselves in the U.S. and has a credible fear of persecution in their home country. Currently, credible fear generally refers to political, ethnic or religious persecution. Some would argue that we ought to have a broader definition of what constitutes a credible fear; one that includes fear of violence from gangs and domestic violence. Others would argue against including these categories.
The validity of claims for asylum are resolved in our immigration courts. Unfortunately, these courts face such a backlog that it can take years for a case to be adjudicated. As a consequence, a perverse incentive has been created for otherwise illegal immigrants to make weak claims for asylum so that they can be admitted to the country legally and work. The extent to which these claims are actually defensible can be debated. The vast majority of these debatable asylum claims are rejected, but the claimant has the benefit of legal status while waiting years for their trial date to come up. Some of these people just disappear during this period and become part of the underground economy.
What is not in dispute is that there is a perception that the asylum system is being gamed, and that to some degree this perception is valid. There are a number of approaches that can be used to limit this abuse or perceived abuse of the asylum system.
Asylum seekers can be required to seek asylum in the first “safe” country they enter. An asylum seeker, from China for example, who flies to Canada, cannot then travel to the U.S. and request asylum. He or she must apply for asylum in Canada instead. If Mexico was viewed as a “safe” country by the U.S., asylum seekers from other Central American countries could be denied asylum in the U.S. on the same basis.
During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. required immigrants to wait in Mexico while their claims were being evaluated. This special approach was justified based on the public health risk of a more open process. After the pandemic was over, U.S. courts ended these special provisions. We could make the necessary legislative changes to bring this system back.
For a time, the Trump administration had a zero-tolerance plan that placed apparently illegal immigrants in detention until their cases could be evaluated. Unfortunately, this resulted in whole families, including small children, being placed in detention; a solution that most considered unacceptable. We could bring back detention for adults and put families at the front of the line for adjudication of asylum claims.
Some, but not all, of these changes are inconsistent with international agreements to which the U.S. is a party. It may be time to reassess these agreements. At a minimum, we may need to find ways to enact those changes that can be argued to be consistent with these international agreements.
Finally, we need to vastly increase the ability of immigration courts to handle asylum claims. It will take time to develop a large enough pool of immigration judges to permit rapid review of cases, but we should begin the process. If cases can be resolved in months rather than years, much of the perverse incentive to make spurious asylum claims will disappear.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position