Challenges of Immigration Policy Reform in the US: A Sociological Perspective on Partisan Divisions

3.1 Border security

For decades, border security has concentrated on preventing terrorism, arms smuggling, and drug and human trafficking. Each of these threats involves crossing borders, so an effective border management system has become essential for safeguarding citizens [14]. Border systems must rapidly identify new arrivals, screen for security risks and protection needs, and direct cases into appropriate procedures. They must also handle asylum procedures, relocate certain cases, and meet immediate humanitarian needs [15]. In addition, governments also face the challenge of securing borders while managing the flow of people and goods due to globalization and free trade, outside the realm of immigration.

Borders are inherently porous, however, and increased cross-border activities necessitate greater cooperation and collaboration in security policies. National borders are critical points through which the public perceives and judges migration trends and policies. High arrivals at official ports of entry and irregular crossings strain border authorities, while media coverage of migrant caravans and violent apprehensions highlights the chaos at borders like those of the U.S. and the European Union (EU) [15]. With consistent numbers of noncitizen apprehensions and expulsions ranging from half a million to over two million, border security continues to be a concern for both parties [10].

It is not surprising, then, that all four U.S. presidents over the last two decades have included border security as a top priority for immigration reform. Before 9/11, the Bush campaign asserted that if elected, he would aim to create a “special relationship” with Mexico, focusing on immigration reform to allow more Mexican workers into the U.S. and providing legal paths to citizenship. Bush faced significant opposition from his own Republican Party, however, which opposed guest worker and legalization policies. They viewed his proposals as amnesty [16]. Post-9/11 in his State of the Union address, Bush called border security “an urgent requirement of our national security.” He discussed his deployment of the National Guard to the border and investment in border infrastructure including vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting, to prevent illegal entry. He focused on ending what he called the “catch and release policy” for “illegal aliens” and expanding the use of “expedited removal” [17].

In a Fact Sheet released in January 2013, Obama argued that the immigration system was “broken” and proposed “commonsense immigration reform.” His proposal aimed to enhance border security by improving infrastructure at entry points, fostering public-private partnerships, and utilizing advanced technologies, much like that proposed by Bush. It claimed stricter penalties for transnational crimes, including drug and human trafficking, strengthening collaboration with border communities and law enforcement and deporting convicted criminals while protecting those with credible fears [18]. Both Bush and Obama saw a modicum of success, with apprehensions decreasing during each of their terms (see Table 1). In fact, in 2017, Robert Warren of the Center for Migration Studies argued that “the era of large-scale undocumented population growth has ended, and that there is a need to reform the US legal immigration system to preserve and extend these gains” [19].

In May 2019, Trump addressed the American populace with “an immigration plan that will turn America’s broken immigration system from a source of national division into a point of pride and national unity.” It set to establish a self-financing border security fund, supported by fees and revenues from ports of entry, to guarantee law enforcement officers have the necessary resources without waiting for Congressional approval. It also ensured thorough inspection of all individuals and goods entering the U.S. at ports of entry and it expedited the construction of barriers in key areas. Trump, however, did not enact a self-financing border security fund. Instead, in 2019 and 2020, he diverted funds from other sources, such as the Pentagon and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, to finance border security measures [20, 21]. Still, apprehension numbers fluctuated across his term. Jessica Bolter, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, noted that apprehensions significantly dropped in the months following Trump’s inauguration, a phenomenon dubbed the “Trump Effect.” An unprecedented record low in April 2017 was noted in Customs and Border Protection data, something that had not been seen since 2000. However, the numbers began to rise again in late 2017 and early 2018 [22].

In response to the Trump-era actions, President Biden proposed immigration reform “to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system” in 2021 [23]. Regarding border security, it sought to allocate additional funds for technology and infrastructure improvements, such as scanning technologies at all entry points to detect narcotics and contraband, and financial support for training programs and ongoing education to enhance the safety and professionalism of agents and officers. It targeted prosecution of smuggling networks and expansion of anti-gang task forces in Central America. Yet, despite efforts to pass comprehensive legislation, as of 2024, efforts have failed to advance a bill in Congress, including the recent Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. While the most recent immigration numbers are not yet available, border apprehensions and expulsions increased dramatically in 2022 (see Table 1). According to Chishti and Bush-Joseph of the Migration Policy Institute (2023), “this border surge may have been partly prompted by the administration’s actions elsewhere to shield immigrants from deportation and provide humanitarian protections, as migrants expected a warm welcome in the United States after four years of Trump. Biden’s ambitious immigration agenda, therefore, may have contributed to one of his most vexing policy challenges” [24].

3.2 Economic impacts

Economists point to the potential positive net effect of immigration for both immigrants and the host country. Immigration increases labor resources, boosting the economy’s productive capacity. The income benefit to natives in the destination country is termed the “immigration surplus,” which is larger when there are more immigrants and greater wage decreases. Economists estimate annual economic gains to native-born Americans between 0.1% and 0.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) or about $54 billion a year due to immigration. However, the distribution is uneven [25].

The traditional labor supply and demand model of immigration suggests that there are beneficiaries—immigrants, the companies that employ them, and native-born workers whose skills complement those of immigrants—and there are those who may be disadvantaged—native-born workers who compete directly with immigrants for jobs. Evidence suggests that the negative impact is particularly harsh for black workers with low education and Hispanic workers who have not completed high school and have limited English skills. Additionally, earlier groups of low-skilled immigrants without a high school diploma experience greater negative effects compared to other low-skilled workers. In more advanced theoretical models, the effect of immigration on wages depends on various factors, including differences in worker skills, the rate at which capital adjusts, how firms adapt their production technologies, labor laws, enforcement policies, the overall economic health, the mix of outputs, and the specific time period being analyzed [25, 26, 27].

Immigrants increase job competition but also create jobs by starting businesses, positively affecting the economy. Moreover, immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs than native workers, contributing significantly to job creation. Immigrant-founded firms often pay similar or higher wages compared to native-founded firms and are responsible for a substantial portion of patents [28]. In housing markets, evidence shows that immigration increases demand, leading to higher housing prices. However, immigration tends to lower prices for certain services heavily used by immigrants, like childcare and landscaping. Immigrants also enhance local product variety by introducing new goods and services. Additionally, immigration can boost international trade and financial investment by improving cross-country information flows [25]. Reduced immigration not only results in higher wages for low-skilled workers but also causes higher consumer prices and lower overall consumption [29].

After the 2009 recession, U.S. employers raised wages to attract workers for low-skilled jobs, but by then, the immigrant labor force had diminished. This led to a labor shortage, especially evident after 2014 and after the pandemic in 2020, contributing to higher inflation. The decline in low-skilled immigration and the resulting wage increases for low-skilled jobs led some young U.S. workers to skip college. This reversed a 40-year trend of pursuing higher education for better-paying careers. Then, in 2022 and 2023, the U.S. saw a significant increase in net international migration, surpassing pre-pandemic levels and reaching up to 3 million individuals. The influx of immigrant workers helped alleviate labor shortages and reduced job vacancy rates, particularly in industries like leisure and hospitality. Increased immigration also contributed to slower wage growth in sectors with high immigrant employment, such as construction and manufacturing. Currently, foreign-born workers make up over 19% of the U.S. workforce. This number includes both legal and undocumented immigrants [30].

Each of the U.S. presidents in the past two decades approached the economy in different ways. For example, in his State of the Union proposed immigration reform, Bush advocated for a revised temporary worker program to allow foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans were not taking. The number of guest workers allowed would vary with economic conditions, increasing during economic booms and decreasing during downturns; those who overstayed their visas would be barred from obtaining citizenship [17]. Yet, Bush’s policy was never fully realized. Later, Obama argued that providing a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented residents would stimulate economic growth as they pursue education, secure employment, and contribute to the tax system. He achieved some success with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program but overall labor force participation declined [31, 32]. When Trump’s approach to economic impacts was to promote a merit-based program for legal immigration, skills, achievement, and potential contribution to the U.S. were considered paramount for entry. He aimed to protect American jobs and wages [22]. Finally, Biden discussed economic growth in his proposed immigration reform, advocating for the Distressed Area Recompete Program, which seeks to reduce ongoing economic hardship and promote sustained, thorough economic growth and job creation in various geographically and economically challenged communities nationwide. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress allocated $200 million to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the program, which is part of the $1 billion authorized by the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act of 2022 [33]. The program is set to encourage higher wages for high-skilled non-immigrant visas to avoid unfair competition with American workers [34].

3.3 Integration and social issues

Immigrants often face difficulties maintaining their social customs and adapting to new cultural norms in the U.S. Individual characteristics, such as the proportion of life spent in the U.S., education level, and immigration status, significantly influence acculturation outcomes. Those with more time in the U.S., higher education, and who are closer to citizenship tend to adopt U.S. cultures more fully [35]. Although many immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, begin with fewer economic and educational advantages compared to past immigrant groups, they have generally achieved significant progress across various economic and social metrics over generations. By the third generation, descendants of immigrants often match or surpass the average American in English proficiency, education levels, patriotism, and other fundamental American values [1]. Policies can directly require or restrict customs and indirectly shape community climates, influencing social interactions and opportunities [35].

Over the past decade, family connections have accounted for about 75% of legal permanent immigration to the U.S., with additional contributions from “lottery visas” and other channels. This influx has grown the foreign-born population to over 51 million, making up 15% + of the total U.S. population [36]. Including the children of immigrants, this group represents over 25% of the population. However, there are notable disparities among immigrants, with those from Latin America and Asia making up the majority. Mexican and Central American immigrants typically have lower educational levels and work manual labor jobs, while immigrants from China, India, Korea, and the Philippines often have higher educational credentials [37]. Moreover, each year, the number of foreign nationals applying for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status through family-sponsored categories surpasses the available legal immigrant visas due to numerical limits set by the INA. This has led to a visa queue of approved immigrants waiting for visas. The queue includes over 4 million people. Still, debates over the appropriate level of annual permanent immigration often focus on family-based immigration. Advocates for increasing family-based immigration highlight the long wait times for approved immigrants separated from their U.S.-based families. Conversely, some argue against reuniting extended immigrant families and suggest reducing permanent immigration by eliminating certain family-based categories [38].

For over 50 years, federally funded programs have been required to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) can access public services and information. This requirement has become increasingly crucial due to the growing and widespread immigrant and LEP populations in the U.S. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant compliance gaps, emphasizing the need for language access to prevent harm and disparities. Federal civil rights laws mandate that recipients of federal funding provide language access, impacting various sectors, including state and local governments, for-profit companies, and community organizations. Despite these long-standing requirements, practical challenges and federal-level implementation failures have hindered progress [39]. Immigration salience affects the use of resources and services, as immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants, can be wary of police, healthcare, and sometimes education if the nature of personal information (private or shared) is unclear [40].

Leadership acknowledges the social impacts of immigration on Americans and on immigrants. Bush supported assimilation to American ideals and cultural norms, such as civic responsibility, historical appreciation, tolerance, and equality. He established the President’s Task Force on New Americans, bringing together various federal agencies to support initiatives like English and civics education, and to foster public-private partnerships [41]. Obama proposed to raise the cap for family-sponsored immigration, reduce separation time between citizen and LPR relatives, and create a strategy for immigrant integration. He also established a White House Task Force on New Americans that launched several initiatives to promote economic, civic, and linguistic integration [42]. Trump advocated support for immigrants prepared to assimilate into America’s diverse culture, prioritizing younger applicants who are expected to establish lasting connections and contribute significantly to society throughout their lives. He argued that prospective green card holders should first pass a U.S. civics test and show proficiency in English. He also focused on immediate family members for family unification [43]. Biden proposed reforming the family-based system to address backlogs, reduce wait times, and eliminate barriers to reunification, also supporting LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus (others)) families. He also recommended new funding to various organizations to enhance programs for integration, English-language instruction, and citizenship assistance [34]. Despite the intent of each successive administration regarding immigration, each still faces seemingly overwhelming legislative hurdles.

3.4 Public perceptions

In most countries, immigration is a contentious issue. Some people oppose it because they fear immigrants will compete for jobs or increase their tax burden. They might believe that immigrants take jobs, receive more public assistance than they contribute via taxes, occupy university spots that could go to native-born students, and commit numerous crimes. Although these beliefs are not always accurate, they are still widely held. Additionally, there are concerns that immigration might alter the country’s culture, including language and shared values. The latter has been the case for some throughout U.S. history; with each migration wave, some fear the potential change due to large immigrant populations. People’s attitudes toward immigration can also be influenced by whether they know any immigrants and their experiences with them [25]. Immigration attitudes are notably stable and resistant to change, even during economic and political upheavals. Aligning with political socialization theories, younger people are more likely to alter their views on immigration compared to older adults. Prior studies show that ideology, party affiliation, political interest, and other fundamental political preferences are generally very stable [44].

Public support for immigration policies is complex due to the multifaceted nature of immigration and the numerous variables influencing citizens’ opinions [45]. Demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and income, also influence support for immigration policies. Older individuals are less likely to support policies separating children from parents, married people oppose policies preventing refugees, and low-income earners show more favorable attitudes toward immigration than high-income earners. This challenges the rhetoric that economic competition drives anti-immigration sentiments among the poor and uneducated [2]. However, a recent study has found that an increase in low-skilled immigrants generally pushes voters toward the Republican Party, especially in non-urban, low-skilled counties with high public spending. Conversely, urban, high-skilled counties tend to shift toward the Democratic Party in response to high-skilled immigration. This differential response contributes to political polarization, with low-skilled immigration driving Republican support in less-educated areas and high-skilled immigration bolstering Democratic support in urban areas [46].

According to recent Pew Research Center reports, approximately 57% of Americans believe that addressing immigration should be a primary focus for the president and Congress in the current year. This shift is largely driven by a rise in concern among Republicans, with 76% now considering immigration a top priority, up from 39% in 2021; the percentage of Democrats who view immigration as a priority (now 39%) has remained relatively constant since 2021 [47]. Immigration attitudes leading up to the 2024 election show a majority of Americans (59%) are in favor of paths for undocumented immigrants to remain in country; however, this varies widely by political party affiliation, with Republicans (right-leaning) favoring deportation (66%) and Democrats (left-leaning) (83%) favoring the means to stay when certain requirements are met [45].

It is important to emphasize here the intersection of public perceptions and politics. Public attitudes toward immigration are deeply polarized along party lines and this polarization often shapes party platforms and policy proposals. For example, the Trump administration took a restrictive stance on immigration policy, reflecting the concerns of his voter base about illegal immigration and national security, while the Biden administration sought to reverse many of Trump’s orders, aiming to create a more humane and efficient immigration system [46]. Leadership rhetoric and subsequent media coverage play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of immigration. Studies show that exposure to news on immigration can polarize attitudes further [48].