Summary
We support:
- Creating a pathway to legal residency for immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally
- Expanding merit-based immigration
- Increasing the scale of guest worker programs
- Securing the southern border using cost-effective and humane methods
- Reforming the asylum system to prevent abuse
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.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
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.
Philosophical frameworks like John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, when extended globally, support the value of borders. Just as the veil permits inequality to preserve incentives that raise overall welfare, it also justifies limits on migration to protect the institutions required for just societies. Open borders risk eroding those foundations, harming the very people such policies aim to help.
Our current methods of restricting immigration have contributed to the development of a large underground economy of illegal workers. We need a way to control our borders while also treating fairly those who have immigrated illegally and ensuring that the system is equitable for those who follow legal pathways.
Border Enforcement and Workforce Legality
Effective immigration policy requires that the United States maintain control over its borders and its labor market. Without credible enforcement, even well-designed legal immigration pathways will be undermined by continued incentives for illegal entry.
Border security should be approached in a practical and cost-effective manner. No system will eliminate illegal entry entirely, and attempts to do so at any cost would be neither economically rational nor consistent with our values. The objective should be to reduce illegal crossings to manageable levels through a combination of physical barriers, technology, and personnel, with resources allocated based on measurable results.
At the same time, the United States must address the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration. A significant portion of illegal immigration is motivated by the availability of employment outside the legal system. As long as individuals can obtain work outside formal channels, enforcement at the border alone will be insufficient.
We support the implementation of a reliable, mandatory system for verifying employment eligibility. Such a system should be designed to be accurate, efficient, and minimally burdensome for employers. Consistent enforcement would significantly reduce the demand for unauthorized labor and help bring employment practices into compliance with the law.
Reducing access to unauthorized employment would also change incentives for those already in the United States without legal status. While forced removal on a large scale is neither practical nor desirable, a system in which legal employment is the norm and unauthorized work is difficult to obtain would encourage voluntary compliance with immigration laws over time.
Finally, enforcement policies should be implemented in a manner that is consistent with due process and basic civil liberties. The goal is not punitive enforcement for its own sake, but the establishment of a system that is orderly, fair, and sustainable.
A Fair Path to Legal Residency
We propose creating a path to legal residency for immigrants who are currently in the U.S. 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 transition period prior to full legal residency during which participants would pay a surtax, above their normal taxes, to federal, state, and local governments. This approach helps address fairness concerns relative to immigrants who entered the country legally and can be structured to reduce the economic incentives for future illegal immigration.
Participants in this program would also be required to remain law-abiding or face possible deportation. The program would be a one-time option. Any individual who is in the country illegally and who does not register within a defined period (e.g., six months) would be subject to enforcement under existing immigration laws.
We also believe that the U.S. should expand the formal guest worker program that allows workers to enter the U.S. for a fixed period of time and then return home. Individuals 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 lawful status for which they qualify. This includes the ability to apply for asylum, which, if granted, provides a path to citizenship.
In addition, subsidized health care insurance should be limited to citizens and legal residents. Individuals in the transition program, as well as guest workers, would be required to obtain health insurance independently unless it is provided by their employers. Failure to do so would result in penalties sufficient to ensure compliance.
During the transition period, the children of participants would remain eligible for public education at all levels, including in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.
If implemented effectively, this approach should reduce illegal immigration over time while providing a practical path toward a fully legal workforce.
This approach would not require mass deportation. As enforcement becomes more consistent and unauthorized employment becomes more difficult to obtain, many individuals would choose to return to their home countries voluntarily.
Special Skills and Immigration (The Merit-Based System)
America disadvantages itself by restricting the ability of individuals with valuable skills—particularly in science and technology—to immigrate to the U.S. This is especially true for those who receive advanced degrees in the U.S. and are then required to leave.
We believe that the U.S. should expand immigration opportunities for highly skilled individuals and move toward a more merit-based system, similar to those adopted by countries such as Canada. Expanding this component of the immigration system would strengthen the U.S. economy and enhance long-term competitiveness.
Sanctuary Cities
The dispute over sanctuary cities is largely a product of our inability to reach a reasonable compromise on the legal status of immigrants who are currently in the country illegally.
Local authorities in some cities are concerned that undocumented residents may be reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement if they fear deportation. Conversely, those who favor cooperation with federal immigration authorities are concerned that individuals who commit crimes may evade the legal system.
Recognizing that cities adopting sanctuary policies often have legitimate concerns does not imply endorsement of those policies. Available evidence suggests that crime rates in sanctuary and non-sanctuary jurisdictions are not significantly different.
From a separate perspective, requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law imposes an unfunded mandate on state and local governments. For this reason, conservatives should be cautious about requiring such cooperation.
The broader reforms outlined above would significantly reduce the relevance of this issue over time.
Voting and Citizenship
Federal elections are restricted to U.S. citizens. A small number of local jurisdictions have extended voting rights to non-citizens in local elections.
We oppose this practice. First, maintaining political support for immigration reform requires that the political impact of immigration remain gradual and broadly accepted. Second, allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections may create confusion that could result in inadvertent participation in federal elections, which could have serious consequences for individuals’ immigration status.
The Asylum System
The United States, along with many other nations, offers asylum to individuals who demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their home country. Traditionally, this has referred to political, ethnic, or religious persecution. Some have proposed expanding this definition to include other forms of harm, such as gang violence or domestic violence, while others oppose such expansion.
Claims for asylum are adjudicated through the immigration court system. At present, these courts face significant backlogs, resulting in delays that can last for years. This has created unintended incentives for individuals to make weak or marginal asylum claims in order to gain temporary legal status and access to employment while awaiting adjudication.
While many of these claims are ultimately rejected, applicants may remain in the country for extended periods. Some do not appear for their hearings and become part of the unauthorized workforce.
There is a broad perception that the asylum system is being abused, and to some extent this perception reflects reality. Several policy options could reduce this problem:
- Requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first “safe” country they enter
- Reinstating policies that require applicants to remain outside the U.S. while their claims are processed
- Using detention selectively for adults while prioritizing rapid adjudication for families
- Expanding the capacity of immigration courts to reduce case backlogs
Some of these options may conflict with existing international agreements, which may need to be reassessed or reinterpreted.
Ultimately, increasing the speed of adjudication is critical. If claims can be resolved in months rather than years, much of the incentive to file weak asylum claims will disappear.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.