Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Opinion

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.


Their extra-legal status is a problem because: They have no rights and are thus subject to abuse. They are not entitled to federal benefits, so their welfare and that of their communities are impacted. They are part of a huge black market of labor that the government cannot regulate. Bottom line, you have 11 million people living here who are not integrated into the larger society.

Contrary to Trump, the problem is not that they are criminals, take jobs away from Americans, and use up resources; those are all lies, fabrications. Undocumented immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than the rest of the population. They are mostly hard-working, tax-paying people with families, trying to eke out an existence in a new country. They don't take away jobs from Americans because American workers don't want the jobs immigrants take. And as a general matter, they are not eligible for federal benefits. The one exception is that they are entitled to access public education.

Those are the facts. But before talking about an answer to the immigration problem, we need to talk about the reasons for having a particular immigration policy to begin with.

Immigrants were welcomed by our country in the 19th century because, first, they supplied people to populate the vast new areas that had been added to our country, and later, they supplied the vast unskilled labor pool that our expanding country and industry desperately needed. America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without these immigrants.

Where do things stand today? As seen by the reaction of agriculture, meatpackers, and various other businesses, undocumented immigrants are critical to their ability to grow and process the produce and meat needed by our country to feed itself. These are jobs that pay so poorly, with working conditions that are so bad, that Americans have no interest in applying for these positions. Without the flow of undocumented immigrants, this part of our economy would grind to a halt. That would not be in the national interest.

So the question is, why don't we increase our legal immigration quotas to allow the influx of workers this country desperately needs? Why do we not provide a path to citizenship for those who are already here, working and paying taxes?

The answer is xenophobia and bigotry. There are many Americans, not just White supremacists, who don't like the fact that white people will soon no longer be the majority race in the U.S., largely because of the huge influx of Hispanics over the past few decades.

Democrats are viewed as being weak on immigration. Republicans hold up the picture that all but one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates responded in a debate that they favored decriminalizing illegal entry into the U.S. But it wasn't always so. It was under President Clinton that the immigration enforcement system that we know today was created.

Obama tried to answer the challenge of undocumented immigrants with a comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill that included a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented individuals. It passed the Senate with substantial Republican support because of the hard line it took on border security. But the Republican-controlled House didn't even take up consideration of the bill. A possible explanation: This xenophobic attitude is especially prevalent in rural areas, and in rural areas lies the strength of the Republican Party.

In the years since then, Trump has done a great disservice to this country by painting a false picture of undocumented immigrants as criminal scum. Because this picture has been embraced as fact by his supporters, it will make it that much harder to pass the legislation necessary to integrate these immigrants into our nation and legally provide agriculture and other industries with the flow of unskilled labor they need to function.

So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem? The answer is again a package combining strict border security with immigration reform.

  1. All illegal immigration must be stopped at the border through strict enforcement of our laws.
  2. Undocumented immigrants who are currently in the U.S., working and paying taxes, and who have not been convicted of crimes, should be given a path to citizenship with their families (children and parents) who are already here.
  3. Those undocumented immigrants under 60 who are already here and who do not choose to take advantage of the path to citizenship should be subject to deportation, humanely, back to their country of origin.
  4. The legal immigration quota from Mexico, Central America, and other relevant countries should be increased substantially to allow for the labor needed by American businesses.
  5. A major education program should be undertaken by the federal government to correct the damage done by Trump to the reputation of undocumented immigrants in the minds of many Americans.
  6. The federal government should institute ESL (English as a Second Language) courses for all immigrants.
  7. Some minimum level of mastery of the English language should be required for renewal of a Green Card or other legal status for all immigrants under 60 after they have been here for two years. (Such a requirement already exists for citizenship.)

The last points may be controversial because many people, mostly Democrats and people of color, are against the idea of making English the country's official language and thus would likely be against mandatory English training as well as the language requirement for Green Card renewal.

But if the idea of immigration is to integrate immigrants into the flow of the American economy and society within a reasonable period of time, then a minimum mastery of English should be required, not just for citizenship but for Green Card holders (permanent residents) as well. The idea is not to disrespect the immigrants' culture but to ensure that immigrants are also able to partake in American culture and be part of our society. I am in fact in favor of vibrant ethnic and racial subcultures coexisting with American culture (see my blogpost "Pluralism or DEI?").

We are a nation of immigrants. But it's important to realize that this fact was not the result of some do-gooder, humanitarian policy, as exemplified in Emma Lazarus' famous poem that is enshrined at the Statue of Liberty. It was instead the result of the government's acknowledgement of an economic reality—that a major influx of people was needed to grow our country and prosper. This has been the basis of the government's immigration policy through much of our history, despite the xenophobic reaction of much of the population—even of immigrants once they became established—to new waves of immigrants.

The government must again react with good policy in the face of popular xenophobia.

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less