Is US Migration Policy Too Polarizing an Issue to Find Common Ground On? Four Ways Forward

As someone who has been in the research policy space for a while, it feels like we all have seen this movie before. People like me, in moments like this, stress how important immigration has been to the US and the possible repercussions of migration policies: From short-term inflation and the inability to fulfill labor shortages, to negative implications on innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic dynamism in the long term.

At this moment, it can feel like no one is listening, and no one wants to engage, and maybe no fresh perspective is enough to combat disinformation on either side of the debate. That may or may not be the case. Putting that aside, here are four areas I think have potential for some common ground, and hopefully the basis for better and more constructive conversations, when it comes to the migration debate in the US.

Americans are entitled to a permanent solution to chaos at the southwest border

There is no reason to deny that the feeling of chaos at the border is part of what got President Trump elected again. And the administration needs to act on this. But enforcement policy can only do so much to bring down levels of crossings: As I’ve shown, for 25 years, crossings at the southern border go almost hand in hand with labor market tightness in the US, regardless of who was the sitting president at the time. So, while border enforcement will be part of the equation, there must be an accompanying serious discussion on how to expand labor pathways for immigrants to fulfill pressing labor demands—such as the H1B and H2B programs that President Trump has lauded—eliminating the chaos component permanently. Anything other than addressing the underlying reasons for border crossings directly is just a populist move.

To lead in technologies like AI, the US should continue to compete for global talent

One of the bolder recent statements from President Trump was his endorsement of stapling a green card to every college diploma. He’s right about that—America needs global talent.

No country will be able to sustain an advanced economy–let alone an innovation powerhouse—without competing for this very precious input which is global talent. Recent Chinese AI competition shows that what matters more to stay afloat is not capital investments, but talent. It is all about talent.

My colleagues and I have produced research showing that nations that actively attract global talent benefit from increased innovation, productivity, and long-term economic resilience; and when countries like the US stop attracting this talent, the nations that end up welcoming these workers make gain a considerable competitive advantage.

America requires more workers than it currently has. Migration could be part of the solution

Many Americans are convinced that having a robust manufacturing sector is important for their economy, despite economic theory suggesting the service sector is where America can be most competitive. (Of course, this feeling is completely undermined by the blanket tariff policy the administration has decided to impose on its closest trading partners, but that’s for another blog.)

But there is an important reality that even Trump supporters are feeling on the ground: The US population is aging fast, and labor shortages are already visible across multiple industries. The 40-year-old migration system in the US is outdated and does not consider the labor needs of the country. If the goal is to bring manufacturing and production back to the US, firms will hire American workers—but they will also need to bring in skilled professionals to lead and sustain those efforts. You cannot have one without the other.

This will require giving these firms the ability to bring some of their workers through some of the existing visa labor pathways, many of which are capped (such as the H1B and H2B programs). If the administration really wanted to work this out, they have a unique window of opportunity to push for a comprehensive migration reform that will expand labor pathways with the purpose of strengthening America’s manufacturing sector (or construction or agriculture or all other sectors, for that matter) by considering labor market dynamics. The federal government should work with local stakeholders in states and cities that experience the realities of these labor shortages to create labor pathways.

Further, with massive deportations being considered by the administration—putting aside the fact on whether they are feasible or not—the idea that millions of jobs will be instantly filled by native-born workers is not realistic because, simply put, those workers do not exist (and if you do not believe me, just look at the low unemployment rates prevailing in the market).

There could be better alternatives for Americans than the US entirely shutting down its refugee program

Closing the doors to refugees is a policy decision the US government is entitled to take, even if it is self-damaging, of course, but Americans are entitled to know what the reason behind the policy shifts is. Refugees go through an arduous vetting process to ensure the country is not accepting people with criminal records. And the truth is that conflict, climate change, and political instability will unfortunately continue to drive displacement worldwide. But as other countries will have to find ways to take in those refugees that otherwise would come to America, it is worth asking the question: If not crime, what is it about the relatively small refugee program capped at 125,000 people a year (less than 0.1 percent of the US population) that is so controversial? Is it suddenly the new obsession of cutting costs as a sport? If it is indeed about strain on the public coffers, then the US could still absorb refugees (which its badly need to satisfy the labor needs of the country, as explained above) and expand the programs that “outsource” the process of refugee resettlement to local communities and private individuals through private sponsorship programs. This is not a perfect substitute for a government plan, but the model has been successful in the US so far and in Canada and European countries for much longer and offers a way to harness private-sector resources while reducing the burden on government programs.

Final thoughts

Immigration policy is one of the most contentious and complex issues in American politics, arising lots of passion in the general population. But I hope there is more common ground that we think once we start thinking about the overlap between what Americans voters want and the economic realities for their own communities as well as the long-term implications of our choices for their country in decades to come.

The question is not whether the US should have immigration—it always has, and it always will. The question is whether the US will craft policies that harness the benefits of immigration while managing its challenges in a rational, effective, and humane way. We should all work hard to find that window of opportunity.