How should the U.S. manage its borders, process asylum claims, handle the existing undocumented population — and who bears responsibility for the system's failures?
Each issue breaks into the specific questions Congress actually fights over. Read each position, then head to the interactive version of this issue to mark which reflects your view and build a message to your representatives.
A wall is the wrong fix for a problem that's mostly visa overstays, not people crossing on foot. Most undocumented immigrants entered the country legally and overstayed a visa — a physical barrier wouldn't have stopped them in the first place. Addressing root causes of migration — poverty, gang violence, and climate disruption in Central America — does more to reduce unauthorized crossings than any wall, and it costs less than enforcement alone.
Operational control of the border is achievable without a continuous wall — technology and staffing do more per dollar. Sensors, surveillance, processing capacity, and targeted infrastructure at high-traffic points address security more efficiently than a continuous wall. Border security and a functioning legal pathway aren't in opposition — they reinforce each other, which is the premise both the 2013 Gang of 8 bill and the 2024 bipartisan framework were built on.
Controlling who enters the country is the government's first immigration obligation, and that takes real infrastructure and staffing. Without operational control of the border, no other immigration policy is sustainable — a physical barrier at strategic points, backed by sufficient personnel and rapid-removal authority, isn't symbolic. Every nation enforces its borders; the U.S. is not unique in doing so.
The country benefits enormously from robust legal immigration, and decades-old caps and backlogs don't reflect that. Immigrant entrepreneurs founded or co-founded more than 40% of Fortune 500 companies, and legal backlogs spanning 50+ years for some countries — particularly India and the Philippines — trap people in limbo through no fault of their own. Caps should reflect actual labor-market needs, not a politically set ceiling from decades ago.
Legal immigration levels should be recalibrated periodically to labor-market and humanitarian need, not frozen from decades ago. The annual cap of roughly 1.1 million green cards hasn't changed significantly since 1990, despite massive population and economic growth since. Family reunification and skills-based pathways both serve legitimate national interests and don't have to compete for the same limited slots.
Immigration levels should weigh the interests of American workers who compete most directly with lower-wage immigrant labor. High immigration rates during periods of wage stagnation suppress earnings at the bottom of the income distribution. The country's integration capacity — housing, schools, social services — is a real constraint that policy has to respect, not just a talking point.
The U.S. has binding legal obligations to process asylum claims fairly, and policies built to deter claims before they're heard violate that. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol require processing claims fairly and not returning people to countries where they'd face persecution. Remain in Mexico, safe-third-country agreements with nations that lack functioning asylum systems, and Title 42-style health-based expulsions are designed to deter claims before they're heard, not to process them fairly.
The asylum system is broken in ways that hurt everyone, and the fix is capacity, not a fight over the right itself. Immigration courts are overwhelmed, applicants wait years for hearings, and border communities bear real costs without federal reimbursement. More immigration judges, faster initial screening, and better coordination with NGOs for case management are practical fixes that poll well across party lines even when the underlying politics doesn't.
The asylum system has been exploited by economic migrants and smuggling networks coaching claimants to use persecution claims as an entry mechanism. Genuine refugees fleeing documented government persecution deserve protection; economic migrants seeking better wages don't qualify under any correct reading of the law. Processing claims rapidly at the border, with clear standards and real consequences for fraudulent claims, is what restores integrity to the system.
Mass deportation of the roughly 11 million undocumented residents already here is impossible, damaging, and wrong — a path to legal status is the practical answer. The vast majority have been here more than a decade, with U.S.-born children, mortgages, and deep community ties; mass deportation would require a law-enforcement apparatus with no precedent in American history. It would also be economically damaging — agriculture, construction, and food service would face acute labor shortages — for people who have built lives here.
Longtime undocumented residents who've paid taxes and stayed out of legal trouble are a different population from recent unauthorized entrants, and policy should treat them that way. A path to legal status for longtime residents — with background checks, tax compliance, and English proficiency requirements — commands majority support across party lines in consistent polling. DACA recipients specifically have broad, durable public support that's outlasted more than a decade of legal challenges.
A path to citizenship for people who entered or remained illegally rewards lawbreaking and signals there's no lasting consequence for unauthorized entry. Mandatory E-Verify for all employers and consistent interior enforcement — making unauthorized status genuinely untenable — is a more principled approach than periodic amnesties. Historically, amnesties have accelerated future illegal immigration rather than resolved the underlying problem.
ICE enforcement should target people who pose genuine public-safety threats, not sweep up longtime residents, caregivers, and workers with no criminal record. Courthouse and school-zone enforcement chills cooperation with law enforcement in immigrant communities, making everyone less safe, not more. 2026 has already seen fatal ICE-involved shootings during routine vehicle-stop enforcement, prompting ICE itself to pause most vehicle stops in July — a sign the current approach is generating harm the agency's own leadership is now stepping back from.
Enforcement priorities should focus on recent unauthorized entrants and people with serious criminal records, applied consistently rather than swinging with every administration. Sanctuary policies span a real spectrum, from refusing to honor detainer requests to refusing all cooperation with federal authorities, and the former has more public support than the latter. ICE's own July 2026 pause on most vehicle stops for immigration enforcement, after a string of fatal shootings, suggests even enforcement-focused priorities need real operational guardrails to hold public trust.
Federal immigration law should be enforced as written, and sanctuary jurisdictions that won't honor ICE detainers shift risk back onto communities. Sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse detainer requests release people already in federal custody — often with prior records — back into communities, shifting cost and risk elsewhere. Cities and counties can't selectively comply with federal law; consistent enforcement, not discretionary non-enforcement, is what the rule of law requires.
Employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, often at sub-minimum wages, are the demand side of unauthorized immigration and deserve real sanctions. Meaningful employer sanctions, including criminal prosecution of repeat violators, address the economic incentive that drives irregular migration more directly than border enforcement alone. If E-Verify becomes mandatory, it has to be paired with anti-discrimination protections and an accurate, functional database.
Mandatory E-Verify for all new hires is a logical, workable complement to any serious enforcement or reform strategy. The current system, where employers are largely shielded from liability for documents that appear facially valid, creates a legal fiction that a phased mandate would close. A phased rollout beginning with federal contractors and large employers, with a clear timeline and anti-discrimination safeguards, is workable and has precedent.
Mandatory E-Verify is essential to any enforcement regime that takes interior enforcement seriously. Without employer accountability, the incentive structure for unauthorized entry stays intact no matter what border policy does. E-Verify is free to employers, runs in seconds, and has a confirmed error rate below 0.3% — there's no principled reason it isn't already mandatory everywhere.