Finding Goldilocks Solutions to Immigration Challenges

e pluribus unum • out of many, one

By Amber N. Ott

A nation of immigrants, the United States has a long tradition of welcoming people from other places. This support stems from our founding principles — the authors of the Declaration of Independence denounced the King of England in part for “refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.”

Despite generally partisan reactions to President Trump’s recent efforts to tighten our nation’s borders, Americans support nuanced immigration policy. Theybelieve we should balance our humanitarian principles with efforts to ensure our security.

For instance, a large majority (75 percent) say that people who immigrated to the United States illegally should only be deported if they have committed a crime (53 percent agree when the crime is serious, 22 percent agree when it comes to any crime). Just 19 percent believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported.* (There is less agreement as to whether illegal immigrants should be offered a path to citizenship.)

Most people also agree that refugees should be welcomed to the United States. In a survey conducted for No Labels, we found that two-thirds think we should allow refugees to enter our country. Even when forced to choose, few would argue for a completely open border, and few would try to keep everyone out.

Immigration policy is complicated, and much of that complexity has been glossed over in the passionate responses to Mr. Trump’s executive orders that restrict border access and punish “sanctuary cities.” Our choices on immigration impact our culture, our safety and our economy. The country’s leaders cannot focus on one piece of this policy issue without considering the other two pieces of the puzzle. And they must recognize that our appetite for spending will necessarily constrain efforts in all of these areas.

The public also supports a comprehensive approach to immigration. When asked to choose between two approaches — one that prioritizes border security over guest worker programs and paths to citizenship versus one that addresses all these issues at once, people prefer the comprehensive approach by a margin of 65 to 35 percent. Even a majority of Republicans (53 percent) favor this strategy.

So where do we go from here? For too long, politicians have put off comprehensive immigration reform. Current immigration policy does not reflect the workforce needs of the modern economy; it does not account for the ballooning number of displaced people around the world; and it is ill-equipped to address the diffuse security threat posed by radical terrorists. The controversy over the past few months has only highlighted the need to address these problems with urgency.

Confusion over how Mr. Trump’s new policies will be implemented has also made it clear that the president cannot make meaningful changes to immigration policy alone. The executive’s greatest direct power lies in the prioritization of how existing laws are carried out. Executive orders can conflict with existing policy — leading to uncertainty — and provide piecemeal, temporary solutions at best. Because President Obama was unable to reach agreement with Congress, his unilateral effort to grant conditional residency for minors (in one example) can be reversed with the stroke of a pen. The same could be true of Mr. Trump’s recent policy efforts.

Only when the president and Congress work together will we achieve lasting solutions to our immigration problems. Indeed, it is Congress’ constitutional responsibility to set the terms and conditions of immigration and citizenship.

Just as we have a tradition of welcoming those who come to America in search of liberty and freedom, we also have a history of vigorously debating who should be allowed to join our society. There are no simple solutions to our immigration challenges, but we don’t live in a simple world. There are no perfect solutions either, but we can’t let those with extreme views keep us from collaborating on the thoughtful, comprehensive immigration policy that we need.

About the Survey

Findings from the No Labels/Hudson Pacific research are based on a nationally representative survey of 1,000 registered voters. Responses were collected online between January 4 and 7, 2017. Because the survey did not utilize a probability sample, no estimates of sampling error have been calculated. For more details about the survey methodology visit: http://www.hudsonpacific.co/no-labels-survey-immigration-release

* Source: Quinnipiac University Poll, February 23, 2017. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2432