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

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

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