Background
Since the introduction of the visa quota system under the Immigration Act of 1990, average wait times for visas have doubled from 2.8 years to 5.6 years. With the backlog reaching a record high of 11.3 million in 2025, at least 675,000 would-be immigrants are expected to die while awaiting their visa approval. Consequently, analyses of current pathways to citizenship and possible reformation continue to spark public and Congressional action.
Upon closer examination, the 5.6-year average processing time changes drastically depending on the type of visa. For example, some of the lowest wait times are for company-sponsored EB3 visas, which take roughly 2 years. On the other hand, wait times for certain visa categories—such as family-sponsored F3 visas—can extend to over 21 years.
As the number of visa applicants continues to grow—peaking at 34 million applicants in 2024—proposals for more efficient pathways to citizenship have piqued public interest. One such pathway is the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929, proposed by Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) on August 28th, 2025. If passed, this bill could offer citizenship to over 11 million immigrants waiting for their visa approval.
Introduction: Renewing the Registry Statute
The bill aims to amend the date of entry requirement described in the Registry Statute of the Immigration Act of 1929. Initially, the Registry Statute offered citizenship to those who had entered the U.S. before 1924 but lacked official paperwork. In 1986 however, Ronald Reagan amended the Statute through the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which expanded it to those who entered the United States before January 1st, 1972.
This change, in theory, allowed nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status. Yet, between 2015 and 2019, only 305 people did so, showing how ineffective the 50-year-old date became. To correct this, the new bill would require proof of residence in the U.S. for at least 7 years before the application date rather than changing the date again.
Arguments in Support of Renewing the Registry Statute
Given one amendment by Republican President Reagan and the recent proposal by Democratic Senator Padilla, supporters emphasize the longstanding bipartisan support for reforming the bill. They also highlight efforts to streamline immigration policy to allow functional pathways to citizenship for those on the waitlist. Many also highlight President Reagan’s response in a 1984 presidential debate as synonymous with current Democratic policy, despite his affiliation with modern conservatism: “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”
Many pro-reform arguments also compare the cost of continuing to detain and deport immigrants against the economic contributions amnesty would entail. For one, the 11 million immigrants in the U.S. pay $96.7 billion in taxes each year—a higher average tax rate, 10 percent of their income, than the top one percent of Americans, who only pay 7.2 percent of their income. Supporters also point to the fact that offering work authorization would generate $40 to $137 billion annually, since citizenship would mandate higher wages.
In contrast, deportations to Guantanamo Bay in 2025 cost $40 million a month and the 50,000 people detained in ICE facilities cost $8.2 million a day. Moreover, the military deployment to various U.S. cities has cost nearly $500 million as of November 2025. Supporters argue that further anti-immigrant legislation would not only deprive the economy of the benefits of the additional labor, but also cost taxpayers more by enforcing it.
Finally, supporters raise humanitarian concerns about the treatment of undocumented immigrants. Many highlight how their lack of official paperwork denies immigrants access to necessities like healthcare, public housing, and equal workplace protections. Analysis of healthcare outcomes for undocumented immigrants reveals they often resort to using emergency services as primary care, leading to longer hospitalizations and higher mortality rates due to delayed access to care. Moreover, roughly a third of undocumented households face food insecurity but are denied access to food stamps, further jeopardizing their health. Undocumented statuses are also associated with a higher frequency of workplace discrimination.
Arguments Against Renewing the Registry Statute
Opponents criticize the Registry Statute by analyzing the aftermath of President Reagan’s 1986 extension, which strained American resources and jeapordized the safety of immigrants. They point to the subsequent increase in human trafficking and a 17 percent increase in undocumented migrants attempting to cross the southern border. They argue that mass citizenship should not encourage illegal migration to the U.S., but deter it to protect the rule of law and avoid straining government resources.
Many opponents also believe the bill is illegal because it offers citizenship to immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally. The Registry Statute excludes people “deportable under section 1251(a)(4)(B)”— meaning that it should deport anyone who has committed a crime. Since entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, opponents have long opposed mass amnesty solutions for the immigration crisis.
Finally, opponents argue that mass amnesty is a threat to American job security. They point to the fact that immigrants form 18 percent of the labor force to claim that mass amnesty would displace American-born workers and decrease wages. This is exacerbated by fears of an economic recession and oncoming repercussions of tariffs. Opponents also point out that amnesty alone cannot fix poor working conditions for undocumented immigrants, blaming instead their “youth, low education and skill levels, limited English proficiency and short stints with specific employers.”
Conclusion
Support for changing the Registry date under the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 is rooted in goals of economic reform, bipartisan cooperation, and humanitarian concern. At the same time, the proposal has faced criticism for insufficiently addressing potential strains on government resources, the economic security of legal residents, and the possibility of encouraging further unauthorized immigration. Regardless of whether the bill is ultimately adopted, it is clear that the population of approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants awaiting a path to citizenship continues to grow each year, heightening the need for systemic relief.
Exploring New Pathways to Citizenship: Renewing the Immigration Act Registry Statute was first published on The Alliance for Civic Engagement and was republished with permission.
Chloe Durham is an undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, studying Linguistics and Japanese Language
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.