COMPREHENSIVE REFORM 

Almost everyone criticizes the current immigration system. Three times in the last 30 years, Congress has been close to passing comprehensive reform that a bipartisan group of lawmakers argued significantly improved the existing system. Those efforts failed because competing perspectives concluded that the negotiated package didn’t provide enough of what they considered necessary. Some thought it should provide an easier path to citizenship for more of those here who don’t have it. Some thought it needed to do more to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law. 

The narrow partisan majorities of the last three decades and highly separated powers have meant that neither side has been able to pass legislation for lasting policy that would deliver more of what they wanted than the comprehensive bipartisan packages.

In this section, we consider the arguments for comprehensive bipartisan compromise, even if it falls short of most Americans’ ideal.  

Bipartisan Reform 

The basic outline of a comprehensive package most likely to attract sufficient bipartisan support to potentially pass Congress has remained largely the same. In broad strokes, the realistic bipartisan comprehensive reform today would likely include: 

  • Lasting increases in border security—Beyond OBBBA’s funding authorization, the most likely comprehensive package would include legislative requirements to continue building the wall in the most strategically important places and deploying additional technology that would be binding on future administrations. It would also likely include the most broadly supported asylum reform proposals described in the brief. The likely bipartisan package would not include requiring future administrations to complete the wall along all but 500 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border. 
  • Legal immigration reform—The most likely bipartisan package would include improvements to the pathways for legal entry. Improvements would likely include piloting more ambitious efforts like rotational labor and an integrated visa portal, more modest modernization initiatives, and the most broadly supported of the temporary work visas reforms reviewed in the brief.    
  • Legal status—The most likely comprehensive package would include provisions for an earned path to some form of status for those already here for whom there was the broadest support.  It likely would include some version of the DREAM Act’s provisions for those who arrived as children and the Dignity Act’s provisions for those who arrived as adults. 

The Case For 

Many everyday Americans and some members of Congress cannot be readily characterized as either pro- immigrant or pro-border security and interior enforcement. Instead, they see merit in both perspectives. They argue for bipartisan comprehensive reform because they believe it draws on the best of both perspectives and leaves out the worst.   

Advocates for bipartisan comprehensive reform also come from both those who lean much more in favor of either immigration or border security. From the pro-immigrant perspective, supporters of bipartisan reform argue that holding out for something better has failed for 30 years. They argue that it is time to learn the obvious lesson that this strategy has harmed, not helped, immigrants. They note that the number of undocumented immigrants reached 10 million over 20 years ago and has stayed above that level ever since. Pro-immigrant comprehensive reform advocates observe that holding out for legal status for more undocumented immigrants has simply resulted in leaving millions of human beings in limbo and vulnerable to exploitation who could have been protected under previous bipartisan packages. It is long overdue, they argue, to provide a path to some form of status for as many as possible in bipartisan legislation.  

From the pro-border security perspective, supporters of bipartisan immigration reform argue that holding out for something better resulted in a terribly insecure border for almost all of the last 30 years. Holding out for more left us less secure nation that did not responsible exercise the fundamental principle of sovereignty. They acknowledge that OBBBA and the second Trump Administration have achieved much of what was hoped for. They argue, however, that the current levels of border security achieved through the OBBBA budget bill and the second Trump administration’s policies are unlikely to be sustained much beyond the 2028 election. They argue that past experience shows that the only way to achieve lasting border security is to secure as much of it as possible in a bipartisan immigration bill. 

The Case Against

The arguments against a bipartisan bill also divide into the same contrasting arguments.  

Pro-immigrant opponents of bipartisan legislation argue that the principles of treating those who have lived and worked with us in our communities with dignity and respect are fundamental and should not be bargained away for half measures. They argue that millions who could not earn status under the terms of the outlined bipartisan bill should be protected, not sacrificed for other undocumented immigrants. They argue that because of what they see as the excesses of the deportation policies of the second Trump administration, opposition to status for undocumented immigrants has crested and is now receding. They argue the this is no time to compromise because they believe that future Congresses and presidents are likely to be much more sympathetic toward undocumented immigrants.  

Pro-border security opponents of bipartisan legislation argue that the principle of sovereignty cannot or should not be compromised. They note that for 30 years they had been told they could not achieve what has, in fact, been achieved by the OBBBA and the second Trump Administration. Having so recently demonstrated it could be done, they argue, efforts should continue to make those achievements permanent. The American people, they argue, will have no appetite to return to the chaos and lawlessness of an insecure border. Â