Having considered specific proposals independently to secure the border and improve legal immigration pathways, we now step back to consider a fences and gates package.
For 30 years, Congress has been unable to reach the bipartisan consensus necessary to pass a package of significant immigration reforms. Each party has held out for more of what it wanted. Amid narrow partisan majorities and highly separated powers, neither party could act alone. During this period, economic growth in the US was met with unchanged limits to the number of legal immigrants and temporary workers, which contributed to the rise in the number of undocumented.
One plausible bipartisan fences and gates legislative package could include these proposals we reviewed above:
Lasting Increases in Border Security
Make OBBBA’s Border Detection Technology Permanent — Pass legislation requiring future administrations to continue and maintain OBBBA’s free-standing border technology aspects.
Reform the Asylum System — Raise the initial screening standard for assessing fear of persecution from “credible fear” to “reasonable fear.”
Legal immigration reform
Modernize — Update technology, processes, and data analysis.
Pilot — Test whether the more ambitious temporary work visa proposals can be implemented in a way that protects US and foreign workers.
Implement — Enact the temporary work visa reforms described above.
The Case For
From a policy perspective, supporters argue that each proposal in the package would improve the immigration system in its own right, for the reasons given in its Case For. More importantly, they maintain that the benefit of the whole package would be greater than the sum of its parts. History shows, they argue, that without effective legal pathways, strong labor demand in the US overwhelms border security measures. Without secure borders, legal pathways can’t play their intended role of letting the country decide who enters and on what terms in an orderly way that is safer for everyone than illegal immigration. Advocates believe that pairing more permanent border security and enhanced and modernized legal pathways will create a far more sustainable immigration system where progress on one dimension is not weakened by stagnation on the other.Â
From a political perspective, they argue that neither border security nor legal pathway advocates can achieve their goals without each other’s support, as the last 30 years have demonstrated.
Finally, proponents maintain that a bipartisan legislative package would ensure reform lasts. Immigration policy has swung back and forth for years as each new administration reversed its predecessor’s executive actions. Legislation passed with support from both parties, they argue, is far harder to undo. And because unwinding any one piece would unravel the whole bargain, each side’s gains are protected.
The Case Against
From a practical perspective, some opponents note that each reform presents its own implementation challenges. Enacting them all at once, they argue, is too complex to do well. Incremental reform makes course correction easier. If one reform isn’t working, it can be adjusted without unraveling the larger system.
Politically, some opponents contend that packaging many proposals together simply increases the number of lawmakers willing and able to block it. Opposition, they note, will come from three camps:
| Too Much for Border Security & Too Little for Legal Pathways
The first camp argues that the package does too much for border security and too little to improve and open legal pathways. These opponents believe we have already focused too much money and effort on border security. The rapidly aging American population, they say, means we should bring in many more foreign workers, and faster than this package would. Otherwise, the consequences will be serious for everyone. |
vs
|
Too Much for Legal Pathways & Too Little for Border Security
The second camp maintains the package does too much to open legal pathways. Its border security gains, they argue, are too modest to justify a lasting increase in foreign workers. They contend the increased flow of foreign workers will harm US workers. |
vs
|
Border Security Spending is Wasteful & the Work Visas are Unfair to Foreign WorkersÂ
The third camp objects to both the border security and the legal pathway provisions. They believe it is wasteful and unnecessary to spend more on border security. They also argue that temporary work visas are unfair to foreign workers, making them vulnerable to exploitation. |