Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans Want Immigration Reform—Here's What It Should Look Like

Opinion

Americans Want Immigration Reform—Here's What It Should Look Like
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

At a strawberry farm in California's Central Valley, the harvest is beginning to rot. There aren't enough workers to keep up. A few miles away, an eldercare clinic is cutting hours because it can't hire aides fast enough. Meanwhile, the federal government has expanded expedited removal protocols that could target both kinds of sites.

This reflects economic reality, not political preference.


Now, public sentiment may be catching up.

A July 11 Forbes/IPSOS poll found that 62% of Americans disapprove of current immigration policies, including 65% of independents and nearly a third of Republicans.

While many still support border enforcement, the poll shows growing discomfort with workplace raids and family detentions. More than half now say immigrants strengthen the country, a notable shift from views during Trump's first term. The data suggests Americans increasingly favor reform that balances security with fairness.

This article builds on three economic arguments that together offer a roadmap for understanding and acting on this moment of clarity.

Three Economic Arguments for Immigration Reform

The case for immigration rests on three economic fundamentals that polling suggests Americans increasingly understand:

Demographics: America's aging population and below-replacement birthrates mean immigration is the only reason the U.S. workforce continues growing, and population growth is essential for sustained economic vitality. Countries like China and Russia are already in steep demographic decline.

Essential workforce: Immigrants work in key sectors the country depends on—agriculture, elder care, construction, logistics—often while facing deportation or legal limbo.

Fiscal impact: Millions of immigrants pay into Social Security and Medicare but are ineligible for benefits, helping stabilize programs that would otherwise face insolvency sooner. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, undocumented workers contributed $25 billion to Social Security in 2022 despite being ineligible for benefits unless they gain legal status.

Together, these factors show immigration as a primary engine sustaining U.S. population growth, the uncredited stabilizer of Social Security, and the invisible backbone of entire sectors from elder care to construction. What once seemed like long-term concerns now read as an immediate policy blueprint that the public may be ready to support.

Addressing the Fairness Concern

A fundamental question lies at the heart of the immigration debate. Millions have entered or remained in the U.S. without legal status, a civil violation. At the same time, others have waited for years, following the rules. What does fairness look like? Any serious conversation about reform must grapple with that tension, not to dismiss it, but to resolve it in a way that strengthens both the rule of law and the national interest.

That reform must acknowledge this concern directly. The current system has created two groups waiting for the same outcome through different paths. Some have waited years in their home countries for legal visas. Others have waited years inside the United States without legal status. Both deserve recognition, but neither should be punished for decades of system failures.

Legal recognition for undocumented immigrants cannot be automatic. It should require meeting specific conditions over multiple years: continuous employment or education enrollment, payment of back taxes and ongoing obligations, English language progress, established community ties, and a clean criminal record. Status would remain provisional with regular check-ins and possible revocation for non-compliance.

Meanwhile, the legal immigration system must function properly. Families are separated and employers are underserved because of outdated visa caps, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent processing caused by congressional inaction and administrative neglect.

The alternative to comprehensive reform is continued dysfunction. Mass deportation would be economically damaging, socially destabilizing, and unlikely to succeed at scale. A reformed system addressing both legal and undocumented populations simultaneously may not satisfy every camp. Still, it's the only path that strengthens the rule of law, serves the national interest, and treats people with dignity.

Building Bipartisan Momentum

The polling shift creates an opening for cross-party action that hasn't existed in years. With 65 percent of independents and nearly a third of Republicans disapproving of current policies, multiple constituencies offer paths forward.

The business community provides the clearest opportunity. Chamber of Commerce groups in red states advocate for expanded guest worker programs. Texas, Florida, and Georgia business leaders voice concerns about labor shortages threatening operations. Fiscal conservatives find appeal in the Social Security angle—immigrants paying into a system they cannot access represents deficit reduction without new taxes. Local Republican officials, from mayors to county commissioners, face practical workforce shortage impacts and cannot afford to lose tax revenue.

History shows comprehensive immigration reform can be bipartisan with serious leadership. The 2013 "Gang of Eight" bill passed the Senate with Republican support. Reagan's 1986 reform had broad backing because business interests lobbied for steady labor flows. The difference was presidential leadership treating immigration as a national asset rather than a partisan wedge.

What a Realistic Reform Agenda Looks Like

If the public is ready to move beyond slogans and toward real solutions, Congress should pursue comprehensive legislation that includes:

Expand legal pathways for essential workers. Create new visa categories that reflect actual labor demand in caregiving, construction, agriculture, logistics, and infrastructure. These should include both temporary and permanent options, with clear pathways between them based on employer needs and worker qualifications.

Establish earned legal recognition with firm requirements. Undocumented individuals who have been in the U.S. for more than two years would be eligible to apply for provisional status after passing background checks and meeting employment, tax, and English language requirements. This status would last five years, with the possibility of renewal based on continued compliance. After a set number of years of provisional status, individuals could apply for permanent residence.

Modernize the legal immigration system. Recapture unused visas from previous years, increase annual caps to reflect economic needs, reduce processing times through technology upgrades, and create predictable timelines for all applicants. The goal should be to process most applications within 12 months, rather than the current multi-year delays.

Invest in integration support. Provide English language classes, job training, and credential recognition programs through partnerships with community colleges, unions, and employers. These programs should be funded through fees paid by participants and employers, making them self-sustaining while ensuring immigrants can contribute fully to their communities.

From Public Mood to Policy Design

The polling cited in Forbes may reflect growing public understanding that immigration, managed responsibly, strengthens America rather than weakening it. People are looking for practical solutions that address legitimate concerns while taking into account economic realities.

This represents a significant shift from the political environment of even six months ago. The challenge now is translating possible public readiness into policy action. That requires leadership that treats immigration as a national asset rather than a partisan wedge issue.

Even Ronald Reagan, in his final year in office, referred to immigration as "a source of renewal." The economic case for that view has only grown stronger. The underlying mathematics of demographics and fiscal policy remain the same, but the public mood has shifted.

What You Can Do Next

Public support is moving. The facts are clear. But the system will not change without sustained pressure, conversation, and leadership from every level of government and civil society.

Rather than tackling these complex issues individually, consider supporting organizations already working on comprehensive immigration reform:

Support advocacy organizations working on immigration policy reform, such as the American Immigration Council, New American Economy, or FWD.us, which focus on economic arguments and bipartisan solutions.

Engage business coalitions, such as local Chambers of Commerce, that advocate for expanded guest worker programs and address labor shortages in your region.

Connect with faith-based organizations that support immigration reform and have established networks for effective advocacy.

Contact your representatives to express support for comprehensive immigration reform, emphasizing the economic consequences of inaction rather than just moral arguments.

Stay informed and share fact-based analysis with your networks when immigration comes up in conversation.

The current moment represents a rare convergence of public opinion, economic necessity, and political opportunity. Missing this chance means accepting continued dysfunction in a system that affects every aspect of American economic life.

We have an opportunity to lead rather than simply manage a crisis. If we fail to act, history will note the silence that followed this clear public signal for change.

Edward Saltzberg is Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum, writes The Stability Brief on governance, resilience, and civil society, and is a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University.

Read More

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
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.
Getty Images, LaylaBird

Who Are the Trespassers?

Explaining cruelty to a child is difficult, especially when it comes from policy, not chance. My youngest son, just old enough to notice, asks why a boy with a backpack is crying on TV. He wonders why the police grip his father’s hand so tightly, and why the woman behind them is crying so hard she can barely walk.

Unfortunately, I tell him that sometimes people are taken away, even if they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes, rules are enforced in ways that hurt families. He seemingly nods, but I can see he’s unsure. In a child’s world, grown-ups are supposed to keep you safe, and rules are meant to protect you if you follow them. I wish I had always believed that, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.

On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.

Keep ReadingShow less