Why we need a sensible immigration policy
A sensible policy keeps us safe while keeping our historic promise to the world.
No issue has defined polarization in this country like immigration. The politics of immigration have been with us since the first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Note: This section and the two that follow rely heavily on a CNN interview with Julia Gelatt, associate director of the US Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.
The current controversy can be traced back to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which implemented President John F. Kennedy’s desire for immigration reform, specifically to remove bans based on national origin. It abolished the quota system then in effect, rather prioritizing immigrants’ skills and family reunification. While it favored immigrants from western and northern Europe, it opened the door (a little) to more non-European immigration. President Lyndon Johnson, signing the bill under the Statue of Liberty, didn’t think it would “reshape the structure of our daily lives,” but “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.” While there was a cap on available visas, immediate relatives of someone already in the country did not count against that quota. The intent was to “replicate the racial and national origins of current residents of the United States.” However, student visas available to those from other parts of the world enabled them to sponsor their own family members, which increased immigration from Latin America and some Asian countries. So many people wanted to enter the United States through our border with Mexico, that immigration increasingly occurred outside the law.
Developments before 9-11
The Refugee Act of 1980 established the basis for asylum and increased the number of refugees admitted each year. It provided that the President and Congress could set how many refugees would be admitted each year. Six years later, President Ronald Reagan tried to address undocumented immigration with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which set up the employment verification system and made it illegal to knowingly employ undocumented immigrants. In 1990, the Immigration Act created more opportunities for skilled and educated workers and set a cap of 700,000 immigrant visas for 1992-1994, not including immediate family members of U.S. citizens in that count. This law also created the now controversial Temporary Protected Status, which applies to people who would face extreme hardship if forced to return to their homelands due to armed conflict or national disasters – but only for those already residing here.
Restricting Immigration since 2006
In 2006, the Secure Fence Act authorized construction of about 700 miles of barriers and surveillance along the U.S.-Mexico border. President George W. Bush called it an “important step toward immigration reform.”
In 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) act which allowed immigrants brought here as children some protection from deportation and be eligible for work permits, driver’s licenses and college enrollment but failed to give them a path to citizenship or permanent legal status.
I will not detail the actions of President Trump, or of President Biden’s effort to reverse Trump’s limits on asylum seekers and to stop border wall construction.
The border bill that failed
In an opinion piece for The Hill, Nolan Rappaport explained why last year’s border deal failed. Supporting what would have been the Border Act, President Biden said it would give him authority to shut down the border when overwhelmed and provide the funding needed for additional border patrol agents, immigration judges, and asylum officers. Biden accused House Republicans of “playing politics with the border,” since the bill was adamantly opposed by Donald Trump, who threatened Republican supporters with being “primaried.”
Rapaport found several holes in the bill. It failed to address the problem of so many asylum seekers that the whole system had broken down; and it would not allow the President to shut down the border until the seven-day average of “cumulative encounters with inadmissible immigrants” reached 4,000-5,000 per day. Closure would not be mandatory until the seven-day average exceeded 5,000 per day. And this was the “catch and release” policy. The Senate had passed two previous attempts to reform immigration, in 2006 and 2013, but because Republicans held a majority in the House, and the latter was during the Presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, neither bill passed.
What is to be done?
As noted above, the asylum system is broken. The average wait for an asylum-seeker to get a hearing is four years, and the total wait for a decision can be ten years. Adding more judges won’t help, Rapaport said. The Congressional Research Service stated in July 2023 that it would take 1,349 judges 10 years to clear the backlog. Nine months later, that backlog had increased by 55 percent. The only feasible solution to clearing the backlog appears to be a complete halt on accepting new refugee cases. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated in early 2024 that there were 9.5 million job openings in the U.S., but only 6.5 million unemployed workers. Many of those openings could be filled by offering temporary legal status and employment-based visas available to undocumented immigrants already here. But as we know, for MAGA Republicans, that’s a non-starter.
On July 15, 2025, Reps. Maria Salazar (R-Florida) and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) introduced the Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393, summary), which would tighten border security, toughen criminal penalties, provide a means to reach legal status – but not citizenship – for young immigrants who came here as children, and provide measures to promote American prosperity and competitiveness. The proposed Act would:
Waive legal barriers to the “expeditious” design, testing, construction, and deployment of physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology; and facilitate use of funds authorized by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for constructing barriers.
Make improvements to ports of entry, increase minimum pay for Border Patrol agents, and creates a fund raised by a 1% fee on the income of individuals provided with work authorization under this act.
Hire at least 300 asylum officers to assist in making asylum determination at three campuses where migrants would be held. Migrants would have access to medical staff, social workers, child advocates, and legal counsel. The officers would conduct criminal background checks, verify identification, conduct medical assessments, and screen for human trafficking victims. Those unable to establish a “credible fear” would be subject to expedited removal from the United States. Within 45 days of establishing the credible fear, asylum officers must deny, approve, or refer complex or uncertain cases to an immigration judge. Denials result in expedited removal. Those referred to an immigration judge must take part in a case management program and be monitored so that the Department of Homeland Security can verify each person’s location.
Mandate use of E-Verify by employers. Civil penalties would be increased for employers who knowingly hire undocumented individuals.
Stiffen criminal penalties for illegal reentry. Anyone who reenters after being removed three times or more can be imprisoned for up to 20 years.
Enable those who were brought to the U.S. as children to stay here under a “conditional permanent resident” status for up to 10 years. They could work in the U.S. and travel outside the country. To qualify, they must have continuously lived here since January 1, 2021, entered at 18 years old or younger, undergo a criminal background check, and have graduated from high school or obtained a GED, or be enrolled in secondary school. Anyone who ever participated in a criminal gang would be ineligible.
The immigrant could become a lawful green card holder by obtaining a college degree or credential from a career and technical education school or serve in the U.S. military at least 3 years, or demonstrate employment for at least 4 years and had a work permit at least 75% of the time.
Children would be protected from aging out of status once they turn 21 if it is due to delays in visa availability.
Give employment and travel authorization to undocumented residents who have been continuously in the U.S. since December 31, 2020, pay a $7,000 fine, pay taxes, pass a criminal background check, and enroll in health coverage. They would be barred from any federal entitlement programs, and must report to DHS every two years.
Those who successfully complete the above must apply for Dignity Status, which is renewable every 7 years in perpetuity, but does not provide a path to U.S. citizenship.
All noncitizens present without lawful status will be directed to depart if they do not qualify for the Dignity Program or participate in other alternatives.
Provide authority to maintain family unity in certain cases and creates a “Family Purposes” 90-day visa for nonimmigrant relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to travel to the U.S.
Streamline military naturalizations.
There is a lot to take in here, but this (finally!) looks like a sensible approach to the problem. Let me know what you think in the Comments. Even better, send an email to your Member of Congress!
Note to my readers
Faithful Citizen will retain the purposes stated in the paragraph below, but it also serves as a vehicle for me to promote the books I am writing. With this in mind, you will find some new items in coming weeks, including excerpts from my novels and book reviews of authors you might never have heard of. I hope you will enjoy the new features as much as the old.
Faithful Citizen with Harold Thomas consists of the musings of a mainline Protestant, libertarian Boomer who tries to keep up with the news while remaining true to his faith and the principles of the American Founders. Harold is an author and retired business analyst with degrees in political science and foreign service living in Columbus, Ohio.
Likes and restacks are greatly appreciated!
“…this (finally!) looks like a sensible approach.” I agree. Nice job digging in the weeds, Harold.