Restricting Legal Immigration Won’t Fix America’s Immigration System

A version of this column originally appeared in Michigan Advance.

America’s immigration system is dysfunctional and, in the words of one federal judge, second only to the tax code in its complexity. For decades, presidential administrations and members of bipartisan congresses have failed to reform our outdated immigration system, despite clear, workable reforms. The result is disrupted family and community stability, constrained economic growth, and diminished public trust in the government’s ability to administer immigration law fairly and effectively. It doesn’t have to be this way.

But current White House policies reinforce these challenges, restricting lawful channels and weakening the institutions that sustain them while fixating on enforcement and removal. And the evidence shows that the plan will backfire, increasing the undocumented population and rendering enforcement less effective.

The most effective immigration systems pair interior enforcement and border security with sufficient legal pathways. Frameworks that rely on a “deterrence-only” approach attempt to suppress migration while ignoring the country’s economic and humanitarian needs and values. This funnels people into unsafe, unvetted, and informal entry and increases the number of alleged immigration violations the state must investigate, adjudicate and pay for. 

Legal pathways, representing about three-quarters of long-term immigration to the United States, were already severely constrained before the current presidential term. But the country admits far fewer permanent immigrants per capita than many peer nations. Canada, for example, grants permanent residence at roughly three times the U.S. rate. Available pathways are hobbled by insufficient administrative capacity, restrictive numerical limits, and an extraordinarily convoluted legal code.

Family-based immigration accounts for 63% of permanent legal immigration to the United States and is by far the most common legal route. Applicants still wait decades for their cases to move forward. For siblings of U.S. citizens originating from Mexico, the government is now reviewing green card applications going back to 2001; a 25-year wait.

Employment-based immigration is also expensive, slow and unpredictable. Securing permanent residence through employment takes an average of nearly three and a half years and imposes substantial costs on both workers and the private sector, weakening the country’s global competitiveness. A system that cannot adjudicate cases on a reasonable timeline cannot function as either a credible deterrent or a viable pathway. Instead, it produces a significant population in prolonged limbo. 

Current federal policy has deepened these longstanding failures by further restricting lawful immigration for those seeking to come to the United States “the right way.” After accounting for the decline in immigration that began under the Biden administration, this White House has actually done more to reduce legal immigration than unauthorized immigration.

Among the most sweeping of these restrictions are the indefinite travel ban imposed on 39 countries and a visa freeze for 75 countries. Additionally, companies must now pay a $100,000 fee for foreign talent, pricing out universities, start-ups, and other important economic contributors. The administration has also worked to shut down legal humanitarian immigration, imperiling some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Refugees and asylees, who account for only 16% of U.S. immigration, were also restricted. On day one, refugee admissions, among the most deeply vetted immigrant populations, were suspended for all but white South African populations. A new system of fees prevents people with legitimate asylum claims from seeking protection in the U.S. Additionally, the administration tried to terminate a lifeline for about one million individuals in the United States known as Temporary Protected Status. These include Syrian TPS holders, of which nearly 30% reside in Michigan. 

Together with other fundamental changes, such as  forced deportation to third countries (including Venezuelans that were sent to a torture facility in El Salvador), the current administration appears to be pursuing a policy of deterrence for both unauthorized and legal immigrants.

The record of enforcement-only deterrence policies is costly and inconsistent. Enforcement-only strategies have repeatedly failed to eliminate demand for migration at the national level. They may redirect migration toward different routes, encourage repeated entry attempts, or force temporary and seasonal migration into permanent unauthorized settlement. 

Most Americans support legal pathways for immigration and the majority support allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship if they meet a set of requirements. Federal policy now is both extreme and self-defeating. Dismantling lawful channels while leaving the forces that drive migration in place may increase unauthorized immigration, add pressure to immigration courts and federal agencies, separate families, and constrain economic growth.

An effective system should make accessible, reliable legal pathways the foundation of immigration policy rather than treating them as a limited exception to an enforcement-driven approach.