Policy Spotlight: Immigration

It’s fair to say that immigration has become one of the central issues for debate this election, and while I heavily dispute the notion that Donald Trump is the sole or primary reason for that debate, as he and many of his supporters would like to believe (such a key issue had enormous salience in politics long before Trump came along and suddenly noticed the issue, which is the reason he did so in the first place), it has became a mainstay of discussion regardless.

Which is both good and bad, from the perspective of those seeking enforcement and reform of the national immigration system. Good, because the issue is at least being discussed, and becoming more acceptable for discussion—and bad because despite all the talk, much of what is currently being proposed is incoherent, contradictory, or simply bad policy.

A strong, coherent immigration policy would be focused on three distinct stages: enforcement & reform, verification, and finally normalization. In the first stage, the border would be strictly secured, through a combination of increased border patrols, a physical barrier where appropriate (whether a wall or fence, take your pick), and various technological measures such as drones to deter additional illegal immigration. Measures would need to be taken to deter the popular use of tunnels by drug smugglers and human traffickers, as well, and the Coast Guard would also need to be strengthened to protect against attempted entries by sea. Visa overstays, another serious problem, must be cracked down on as well.

Beyond simple enforcement of existing immigration law, however, new security precautions must be put into place. First and foremost, sanctuary cities are a serious threat to the safety of millions of Americans, and steps must be taken to stop the policy nationwide. Use of E-Verify by businesses to check immigration status during the hiring process should be made mandatory. Immigration from certain suspect countries determined to have a high level of terrorist activity should be reduced or halted altogether, a need demonstrated by the fact that most of the recent perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the United States originated in a handful of countries in which Islamic radicalism is common (however, this is entirely different from attempting to ban members of an entire religion from entering the country). And legal immigration as a whole should be reduced to better match historical levels, allowing new and recent immigrants a chance to more fully assimilate.

There are several more steps that must be taken for the federal government to fully regain control of immigration once more, but once these are achieved Stage Two should come into play—verification. All of the enforcement measures I outlined above, as well as any changes to additional federal law, must be independently verified as actually being implemented, with results readily accessible by the public. For too long, existing enforcement mechanisms for immigration have been ignored, even more so in recent years with President Obama’s unilateral and publicized—indeed widely praised—decision to no longer execute immigration law still on the books. Before any other change is made to national immigration policy, there must be concrete evidence that this carefree attitude has changed.

Finally, and only after both Congress and the public have been convinced that the law is in fact being faithfully executed, there may be a healthy and honest debate about the status of those still in the country illegally, who have not been deported or left voluntarily. Whether that ultimate status would include full citizenship or amnesty, a form of legalization, or something else would be open for debate at that time. But it must be the final step in reforming the national immigration system. There can be no comprehensive bill as long as there are still flaws in border security and immigration enforcement, whether by statute or simple government inaction.

Of course, Hillary Clinton promises to continue Barack Obama’s policy of selectively enforcing the law, while Trump changes his immigration proposals by the week, and sometimes by the day. The list of disappointments and missed opportunities in 2016 also grows by the day.