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

What Comes Next for the 1 Million People Who Have Lost – or Will Soon Lose – Temporary Protected Status

People hold Haitian flags and signs during a July 2026 rally in San Diego in support of immigrants living in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status.

What Comes Next for the 1 Million People Who Have Lost – or Will Soon Lose – Temporary Protected Status

At the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, 1.3 million individuals from 17 countries were living and working in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status, or TPS.

TPS is a humanitarian form of protection from deportation for people who cannot return to their home countries because of an armed conflict, environmental disaster or other extraordinary circumstances.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Customs and Border Protection sign

Signage over the headquarter entrance of the United States Customs and Border Protection building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images

New bill seeks to limit TSA data sharing with ICE

A newly proposed bill in Congress would restrict the Department of Homeland Security from using airline passenger information for immigration enforcement, following growing scrutiny over a previously undisclosed data-sharing agreement between the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The “No TSA Data for ICE Act,” introduced earlier this month by U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit), comes amid concerns over how information collected from passengers for air travel is being used by federal immigration authorities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Judge's hand holding wooden hammer

A lawyer breaks down 'rule of law' using everyday analogies—sports, board games—to explain why recent government actions threaten this founding principle.

naruecha jenthaisong/Getty Images

The Rule of Law Is Simple—and Essential to American Democracy

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

Before the first No Kings rally last year, I carefully hand-lettered a sign that I thought perfectly encapsulated the day's theme. On one side, it read “IN THIS COUNTRY, THE RULE OF LAW IS KING." On the other, it read, "A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN (John Adams)." I carried my sign proudly, certain that it would be a big hit. But the only reaction I got was someone asking me, “Are you a lawyer?” I wonder what gave me away.

Keep ReadingShow less
Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less