Center for Progress CEO Neera Tanden checks all the right boxes in her wall Street Journal op-ed on immigration reform:
Democrats can go on the offensive on immigration, because Americans are repelled by President Trump’s extreme policies. But to take on the president’s immigration cruelty most effectively, Democrats must demonstrate that they back real border security.
A strong majority in this country supports clamping down on illegal border crossings and expanding legal immigration. That middle ground rejects the extremes on both ends: Those on the right, including in the Trump administration, who want to curb legal immigration drastically, and some on the left who have ignored the need for a secure border. The public recognizes that America is a land of immigrants and that our country needs immigration to grow and prosper. They also believe immigrants need to enter the country legally.
Democrats can win this issue—and cleave Republicans—if they support ending illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration. The left also has a chance to split the right as they have split us. We can do that with a plan that secures the border and expands the legal immigration system. The Center for American Progress has proposed such a plan.
Fully securing the border begins with ending the misuse of asylum. Migrants claim asylum in the U.S., receive work permits, and are allowed to stay while their cases are adjudicated. That process often takes years because of immigration court backlogs. This system encourages migrants to cross the border and claim asylum rather than pursue traditional legal immigration, putting pressure on the border, often creating chaos, and slowing down the process even more. Smugglers and other transnational criminals have abused the system for over a decade.
Our proposal ends the misuse of asylum and restores it to its original purpose—to protect those persecuted for who they are or what they believe. Asylum should be a last resort, reserved for those who truly need it, not a path for people, often economic migrants, to get into the country outside traditional legal immigration. Under our plan, the legal standard for asylum would be raised for anyone seeking to cross the southern border to apply for it. People from stable democracies would be screened out. Asylum claims would be humanely adjudicated within 30 days. Migrants would remain at the border while their cases are processed so they can be swiftly repatriated if they don’t qualify.
Still, closing the asylum loophole isn’t enough. Fully securing the border requires effective strategies—including more personnel, better technology, and barriers where appropriate—to deter illegal immigration and apprehend contraband goods. Recent surges in resources to DHS should be invested in measures that work at the border rather than terrorizing communities with raids of workplaces where people have been working for decades.
We need to fix what’s broken, and that means fixing everything. A truly functional immigration system would recognize that legal immigration improves economic growth and benefits the entire country. Yet our visa policies are stuck in 1990, when Congress last updated them, and now we have years-long backlogs for green cards. Rigid annual visa restrictions leave workers and families stuck on temporary visas or separated overseas, and the U.S. maintains woefully insufficient avenues for legal migration. This failure to create a visa program for the 21st century fosters illegal immigration.
We should expand legal immigration—with safeguards that prevent displacement for American workers—to provide more certainty and security for American employers and immigrant workers alike. We should also create more opportunities to attract talent from around the world for entrepreneurs to launch businesses in the U.S. and for STEM students to keep their talents here. We should address the legal status of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years, including Dreamers and farm workers. These people built their lives here, contribute to their communities, and should be able to qualify for a path to citizenship. Leaders of good faith should be able to get behind these humane and security-minded immigration reforms.
As always the devil is in the details. I also wonder whether this op-ed stakes out a policy position or an opening offer. There are a few sentences that trouble me. For example
Rigid annual visa restrictions leave workers and families stuck on temporary visas or separated overseas, and the U.S. maintains woefully insufficient avenues for legal migration.
Is “rigid” being used as a synonym for “any” in that sentence? I have no objections for allowing the annual number of visas to vary by, say, 10% from year to year. Letting them vary by 200% or 500% or more is impractical. There needs to be a limit because our resources are limited and our ability to assimilate new populations is limited. Or this passage:
We should address the legal status of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years, including Dreamers and farm workers. These people built their lives here, contribute to their communities, and should be able to qualify for a path to citizenship.
“Legal status” and “path to citizenship” seem to be treated as synonymous in that passage and we know from experience they are not. Following the Reagan era reform far fewer of the immigrants whose immigration status was legalized pursued citizenship than had been claimed leading up to the reform. Having one’s status legalized while demurring from seeking citizenship suggests that the ties of the migrants to this country may not be as durable as claimed.
There’s also one nagging question: why didn’t the Biden Administration seek that sort of reform? Is it really as acceptable to the Democratic leadership as Ms. Tanden implies?
My position remains unchanged. I think we should allow more legal skilled immigrants who can speak, read, and write English, fewer unskilled migrants, and far fewer illegal immigrants. If the reform Ms. Tanden proposes facilitates that, I would support it. If it does not, I would oppose it.
I think the outcome of the court cases from the last few administrations is that ultimately the POTUS has almost complete discretion to enforce or not enforce immigration laws, which makes legislative compromise very difficult. One alternate avenue would be enforcement against employers, which I don’t see mentioned in this WSJ piece (maybe it’s mentioned elsewhere for a different audience).
I don’t believe that the “failure to create a visa program for the 21st century fosters illegal immigration.” The avenues for legal immigration may need reform, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the incentives for illegal immigration so long as immigration laws aren’t enforced, which at this point is based entirely on the personal discretion of whomever is in the Oval Office.
I agree with Dave’s sentiments about legal vs. illegal, skilled vs. unskilled, immigrants. But I wonder if I should. I’ve been wondering about quotes like this from an older post here about the challenges of AI:
“Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in May that half of all entry-level jobs could disappear in one to five years, resulting in U.S. unemployment of 10% to 20%, according to an interview with Axios. He urged company executives and government officials to stop “sugarcoating” the situation.”
What is Amodei suggesting the government do? New taxes on AI to pay for new, higher levels of unemployment? What should our immigration policy be?
More generally, I’m always wondering what policies or positions someone should change based upon a view of the transformative nature of AI. Some of this is from Tyler Cowen who will challenge AI-doomsters by asking whether they are shorting the market. Cowen no longer believes U.S. debt is as important because of anticipated GDP increases from AI. Should AI make me want to eat Brussel sprouts now?
Tl;dr comment deleted. Shorter:
The immigration situation is very easily understood if you assume the worst of the Democratic party, the Republican party historically, corporate employers, foreign governments, and at least half the immigrants. They’re all looking to exploit the situation to their own gain, and to Hell with the USA, especially whites. I see no reason to assume good intentions on the part of these people when bad intentions explain everything perfectly.
“but I don’t think it has anything to do with the incentives for illegal immigration so long as immigration laws aren’t enforced”
Yet illegal immigration tracks with job availability in the US. I would favor a stronger E-verify system and real punishments to those who violate them. This is all too much like illegal drugs where we know the War on Drugs has failed. Let’s reduce the demand.
Other wise I would favor expanded legal immigration. I dont care that much if they speak English if someone is willing to hire them. I think some increase in border enforcement is fine but I dont favor spending a ton more on it as it’s not likely to do much. If someone has been here for a long time and has been continuously employed for some length of time, 5, 10, 15 years, pick one, let them stay.
On the asylum issue have Congress pass a clear law so that POTUS cant interpret the way they want.
“Democrats can win this issue—and cleave Republicans—if they support ending illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration.”
The problem for Democrats on immigration is that people don’t care what they say now. Steven Covey said it best: “You can’t talk your way out of what you’ve behaved yourself into.”
As it’s been put, when you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made.
The fact that Chicago’s housing stock hasn’t budged in over 20 years—while migration continues—makes the bill’s projections seem deeply out of sync with infrastructure demand.
The comparison is stark. If you’re discussing admitting 1–2% of the U.S. population annually in new arrivals, but the actual housing hasn’t increased to accommodate them, then the term “spin” starts to look like avoidance. Without building millions of affordable, livable units, it’s hard to see how communities can realistically absorb more newcomers—even if the policy seems well-intentioned.
What I also appreciated is the candid tone—no grand ideology here, just honest arithmetic. It’s a rare reminder that real policy needs to align with real logistics—not just rhetoric. If migration numbers are rising, the housing equation needs to rise in parallel. Otherwise, you risk pricing people out, not just newcomers but long-standing residents too.
Note, too, that the pace of new construction has not changed materially over a considerable period. What has changed is the need for more units by people who can’t afford them.