Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less