Rethinking America's Immigration System: A Call for Bipartisan Reform
Immigration remains one of the most polarising issues confronting the United States, mirroring debates in many nations worldwide. The recent killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE agent has intensified public scrutiny, highlighting the urgent need for systemic change. With a 30 January deadline looming to renew funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, Democrats are pushing for restrictions on the agency, risking another government shutdown. Amidst this political tension, there is a growing question: could this moment finally pave the way for a long-elusive bipartisan agreement on immigration?
The Current Immigration Landscape: Flaws and Failures
Until recently, the US-Mexican border saw a surge in immigrants, many of whom presented themselves at formal crossings to seek asylum rather than attempting to cross illegally. While this process was lawful, the overwhelming numbers crippled the asylum system, leading to years-long delays in processing claims. This backlog effectively allowed long-term residence in the US before any legal ruling, fostering a perception that the asylum framework was fundamentally broken.
The Biden administration attempted to address this by maintaining the theoretical right to asylum while imposing restrictions, such as requiring migrants to wait in Mexico, where they faced risks of abuse and exploitation. In contrast, Donald Trump's approach has essentially withdrawn the right to seek asylum at the border, denying refuge to those fleeing war and persecution. Trump's 2024 electoral victory, which emphasised border security, can be interpreted as a mandate to tighten enforcement, potentially through increased border patrols or extending the controversial border wall.
Proposing a Balanced Solution: Enforcement and Fairness
Rather than dismantling asylum rights, a more effective response would involve increasing the number of immigration judges—a matter of funding—to ensure claims are heard fairly and expeditiously. Reducing the backlog would significantly decrease the time asylum seekers without valid claims remain in the country. However, Trump's deportation raids in neighbourhoods and workplaces have sparked controversy, targeting undocumented immigrants who have often built deep roots in American society.
Of the estimated 14 million undocumented immigrants in the US, at least two-thirds have resided in the country for five or more years, with about 45% present for two decades or longer. The equities of deporting these individuals differ markedly from removing recent arrivals. Long-term residents typically have US citizen spouses and children, hold jobs, pay taxes, and are integrated into their communities. In essence, they resemble Americans in all but their legal documentation.
The Case for a Statute of Limitations in Immigration Law
Advocates for stricter enforcement argue that deportation is justified due to illegal status, but this overlooks a critical legal principle. In criminal law, statutes of limitations bar prosecution for most offenses unless charges are filed within five years, reflecting a belief that individuals should be allowed to move on with their lives. Civil law violations often follow similar guidelines. Yet, US immigration law lacks any recognised statute of limitations, meaning undocumented immigrants can be deported regardless of how long they have led productive lives in the country.
Some prior administrations have tacitly acknowledged this unfairness by focusing enforcement on recent border arrivals, a policy-based rather than legal solution. Trump's raids, however, abandon this approach, targeting long-settled individuals. Implementing a statute of limitations for immigration violations could offer a fairer path: if immigrants have not committed serious crimes while in the US, they should be allowed to stay after five years of residence. Critics may label this as "amnesty," but it aligns with existing criminal law principles that do not condone wrongdoing.
Towards a Grand Bargain: Political and Practical Benefits
This proposal could form part of a grand bargain, combining enhanced border enforcement and asylum system capacity with recognition of the unfairness in deporting long-term residents. Such a deal would acknowledge reality, as Trump's raids capture only a tiny fraction of undocumented immigrants despite their high profile. Politically, it offers advantages to both parties: Democrats could demonstrate they do not support open borders, which are broadly unpopular, while Republicans could distance themselves from ICE actions that are increasingly viewed as toxic by the public.
A bipartisan agreement would not resolve all immigration complexities, such as skilled worker admissions, family unification, refugee resettlement, or temporary protected status. However, it could address significant flaws in both the old system and Trump's new approach, moving towards a more humane and effective immigration framework. As Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argues, this balanced path represents the right thing to do, fostering a system that respects both security and human dignity.
