Immigration Reform Part 3: The Strategic Imperitive

In Part 2 of this four-part series, we looked at how decades of broken promises, political gamesmanship, and misplaced compassion pushed America’s immigration system to the brink. But simply pointing out failures isn’t enough. If we want to restore order, public trust, and fairness, we must go beyond slogans and quick fixes. We need a strategy, a clear and practical framework that explains not just how we handle immigration, but why.

This strategy must support America’s security, economic, and cultural interests while allowing room for responsible compassion. Only then can we provide a humane and disciplined path forward that gains the confidence of the American people.

Tactics Are Not Strategy

The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz said war is “politics by other means.” Tactics, he argued, are useless without a clear purpose. Immigration policy is no different. Deportations, walls, visa limits, or legalization are tools, not solutions.

Some advocate for mass deportation as the answer. Others support open borders, citing compassion as their reason. Both overlook the main issue: what kind of society are we building, and how does immigration help us get there? Open-border advocates argue that compassion and global humanitarian duties take precedence over national interests, but no country can thrive with unlimited generosity. Mass deportation alone ignores the need for legal paths and economic factors. Without a shared vision based on our nation’s needs, economic growth, cultural unity, and security, we end up with reactive enforcement, unpredictable policies, and a growing gap between what the public expects and what the system actually delivers.

How Immigration Policy Lost Its Way

The United States is an idea built on liberty, responsibility, and unity. However, recent immigration policies have shifted away from these principles, often driven by sentiment, corporate interests, or political gain. Corporate lobbies push for cheap labor. Activists promote demographic change. Politicians modify rules to sway elections. What’s missing is a plan to align immigration policies with America’s long-term interests.

A firm immigration policy starts with clear questions: Who can support our economic interests? How do we bring them in legally and sustainably? How do we ensure they assimilate and follow our laws? These questions focus on the nation’s interests rather than short-term gestures or ideological victories.

Progressives often quote the Statue of Liberty’s poem, “Give me your tired, your poor…,” as if it’s law. But the Statue, a gift from France, celebrated liberty, not open borders. Emma Lazarus’s poem was a later addition, expressing sentiment rather than a strategy.

Historically, immigration met America’s needs. In the 19th century, immigrants were pioneers settling the frontier to support the nation’s expansion. During industrialization, another wave of immigrants contributed to the growth of factories and the economy. Most came from Europe, sharing cultural roots that eased assimilation. They worked to adopt American values despite facing challenges like discrimination.

The 1965 Immigration Act: Noble Intentions, Strategic Failure

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted as part of a larger effort to end racial discrimination in the United States. Its goals were noble, but its outcomes were strategic failures. By emphasizing family reunification and diverse representation over national interests, immigration shifted away from regions sharing America’s historical, civic, and religious roots, especially Europe. It moved toward countries with less cultural similarity. According to the Migration Policy Institute, European immigration has fallen from 85% before 1965 to just 13% today, while arrivals from Latin America and Asia have increased—often driven by extended family connections, rather than skills, civic fit, or economic need.

The goal of ending racial quotas was fair. However, in doing so, we lost a clear plan for choosing immigrants based on what benefits the country, and their suitability for assimilation. The outcome is a system guided by emotion instead of contribution, and diversity without unity. Immigration is not a global charity effort; it’s a sovereign choice about who joins the national project and under what conditions. It’s time to bring back that purpose with transparent standards, fair expectations, and a renewed commitment to the American ideal.

A Demographic Crisis Few Want to Face

Many people worry about the cultural and political consequences of unrestrained immigration. But to honestly face reality, we must also consider the inescapable math of our nation’s fertility crisis. Recent data indicate that the U.S. total fertility rate has declined to 1.599, significantly below the replacement level of 2.1. This is not a minor deviation; it’s a clear demographic red alert. It indicates that, without immigration, the U.S. population could decrease by approximately 140 million over the next 50 years if current fertility trends continue and immigration were zero, resulting in a 42% decline from today's 334 million to roughly 193 million.

This would not be a gentle decline. This would lead to a collapse in the working-age population, economic vitality, tax revenue, the ability to fund Social Security, and the nation's capacity to defend itself and maintain its global leadership. There would be fewer workers, families, inventors, soldiers, caretakers, and citizens in every sense. We would become a top-heavy, aging society, gradually grinding to a halt.

To simply maintain our current population levels under these fertility conditions, we would need an annual net immigration of 2.5 to 3 million people—more than double our current intake. That’s a staggering number, and if this influx of immigrants is unstructured, unassimilated, or ideologically incompatible with American values and institutions, the very character of the nation could be permanently altered. This is the conservative paradox: we require immigration, but we must have it on our terms—strategic, selective, assimilative, and aligned with national interests.

If we maintain the immigration rate needed to counteract our declining birthrate —approximately 2.5 to 3 million annually — the proportion of foreign-born residents will double by 2085, reaching 25% or more. This would mark the highest share in U.S. history, exceeding the early 20th-century immigration wave (which peaked at around 14.8% foreign-born in 1890). This isn't necessarily bad, but it is fundamentally transformative. If we don't guide that change, it will shape us.

Immigration is essential. So is assimilation. Without both, the unum disappears.

But immigration is only part of the story. We also need to ask: Why are native-born Americans no longer having children? What about our economy, culture, or sense of national purpose has caused our fertility rate to plummet? We require a national revival of family growth, a renewed belief in the future, and cultural and economic conditions that support young families.

The reality is apparent: Without immigration, we fall apart; without structure, we fade away. Only through a realistic, strategic, and values-based approach to both immigration and cultural renewal can the United States succeed in the years to come.

Europe’s Warning: When Multiculturalism Replaces Unity

Europe’s recent experience highlights the risks of immigration without proper integration. Europe has a lower fertility rate than the U.S., with some countries as low as 1.2. Europe needs millions of immigrants or an immediate reversal of its declining fertility rate. Its current immigration policy is failing to assimilate recent arrivals.

Many European countries adopted multiculturalism to address labor shortages and declining populations, believing that different cultures could coexist with mutual respect and tolerance. However, tolerance without shared values weakens societies, and diversity without unity leads to division. Instead of promoting integration, many European nations allowed separate communities to develop—maintaining old-world customs, legal systems, and loyalties. The outcome has been increasing crime, radicalization, and mistrust in cities like Malmö, Paris, Brussels, and Dublin.

Europe faces a distinct challenge. Unlike the United States, which was founded on civic ideals of liberty and equality, European countries are deeply rooted in their ethnic and ancestral heritage. France, Germany, Italy, and Ireland are not just political borders; they are historical civilizations with long-standing cultural traditions. I once visited a small German village along the Rhine where the same families had operated a bakery and brewery for over a thousand years. While our lederhosen-clad guide spoke proudly of tradition, a woman in a full burka passed by. The difference was clear. This wasn’t just immigration; it was a cultural clash. Bringing in millions from the Middle East and Africa to aging European populations might help with demographic decline, but it also risks erasing the very culture it seeks to protect.

This isn’t about race or religion—it’s about civic compatibility. Multiculturalism presumes that all cultures are interchangeable, but sharing space doesn’t mean sharing values. America should learn from this. Our strength comes from a civic identity that’s open to everyone—but only if newcomers accept its core principles. A society that forgets its values, or refuses to expect them from others, won’t last. Tolerance without standards isn’t compassion; it’s surrender.

America should take this warning seriously. Our strength doesn't come from mimicking Europe's tribal origins but from reaffirming the civic identity that defines us as Americans. That identity must be safeguarded—not through hostility or exclusion, but with clarity and confidence, because a society that forgets its core values will not endure.

Cultural diversity can strengthen a nation, but it depends on newcomers adopting core democratic principles. It’s worth questioning whether beliefs like favoring Sharia law over constitutional governance or a visa applicant insisting his wife wear a full burka align with the civic values vital to a free society. Tolerance without standards isn’t kindness; it’s surrender.

The Core Objectives of a Strategic Immigration System

To reform immigration effectively, fairly, and sustainably, we need to establish a clear strategy based on solid objectives. These seven pillars form the foundation for a system aligned with national interests, civic unity, and responsible compassion.

1. Serve the Economic and National Security Needs of the Country.
Immigration must be aimed at filling genuine gaps in both high- and low-skill sectors while protecting American workers and enhancing national security through strict identity screening and enforcement. The system must be adaptable, with the flexibility to respond to changes as fertility rates fluctuate and industries evolve.

2. Attract and Retain Human and Economic Capital
America must prioritize immigrants who will innovate, invest, and contribute—especially in science, technology, engineering, skilled trades, and entrepreneurship. Canada’s points-based system, which rewards education, work experience, and language ability, provides a proven example. We should aim higher.

3. Ensure Assimilation and National Unity
Diversity without assimilation is not strength—it is fragmentation. A functioning nation requires a shared language, civic understanding, and a sense of allegiance to shared values. Newcomers are expected to have a basic working knowledge of English and will be supported in further developing it. Assimilation should be structured and encouraged, not assumed. A 2018 Pew Research study found that 90% of Americans believe speaking English is essential to national identity. That isn’t prejudice. It’s practical wisdom.

4. Support Labor Market Flexibility
Our immigration system must adapt to real-time labor needs through seasonal and skills-based visa programs, particularly in sectors such as agriculture and construction. However, flexibility should not create dependency. Programs must prevent exploitation and avoid creating a permanent, disenfranchised labor underclass.”

5. Restore Credibility Through Accountability
Immigration policy must be measurable and transparent. Are immigrants self-sufficient within five years? Are overstays being identified and removed? Are laws being enforced consistently? In 2022, ICE reported over 600,000 visa overstays—yet enforcement remains weak. When the gap between promise and practice widens, public trust deteriorates.

6. Solve the Due Process Paradox. The courts have confirmed that non-citizens are entitled to due process rights. That principle must be maintained. However, when those rights are exploited to delay or obstruct enforcement, the system breaks down. By 2023, the immigration court backlog exceeded 2.8 million cases, with some taking more than five years to resolve. People with expired visas often vanish into the interior and then reappear to restart the process—sometimes aided by activist organizations whose goal is not justice but delay.

We must distinguish between legitimate legal review and systemic obstruction by imposing statutory limits on continuances and appeals, facilitating expedited removal for clear violations, such as visa overstays, and ensuring complete due process for complex asylum and humanitarian claims. Laws that cannot be enforced are not only ineffective, but also pointless.

7. Revising Humanitarian Exceptions: Amnesty, Parole, and Refugee Entry
A principled policy must include space for compassion. However, this space needs to be clearly defined; otherwise, it could be misused and harm public trust. Amnesty was initially intended for those facing political persecution, not for individuals fleeing high crime areas, struggling economies, or cultural differences. Parole authority, once used sparingly for urgent cases, is now broadly applied by executive order to admit entire populations. Refugee resettlement, formerly limited to victims of war and genocide, now covers a wide range of social and identity-based claims, often driven by cultural conflicts rather than persecution.

This damages trust. If Americans believe compassion is being exploited as a loophole, they will seek to eliminate it. We must refocus eligibility on direct, personal persecution instead of broad conditions, require claims to be filed before arrival whenever possible, and control parole and refugee numbers through Congressional oversight and caps.

This blueprint, centered on sovereignty, merit, and national unity, lays the foundation for reform. In Part 4, bold proposals and specific policies will be presented to make this vision a reality.

America’s immigration system has failed for decades. It’s time to get it right.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Immigration Reform Part 2: Why We Keep Failing—and What It Will Take to Succeed

A bipartisan opportunity for meaningful immigration reform may finally be on the horizon, but only if both sides are willing to reflect on how we arrived at this point. This post continues from Part 1 by exploring the political, legal, and cultural choices, on both the left and the right, that have contributed to today’s immigration crisis. For decades, partisan agendas, broken promises, and misplaced priorities have shaped a system that pleases no one and fails everyone. While millions remain in legal limbo and needed systemic change is ignored, political leaders cling to slogans instead of solutions. By tracing the history of immigration policy from the 1986 amnesty to today’s dysfunction, we can begin to understand why real reform has been so challenging and what kind of consensus will be necessary to move forward.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a comprehensive law that provided legal status and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. It was a significant compromise: amnesty in exchange for more vigorous border enforcement. However, only part of that agreement was fulfilled. Legalization occurred, but enforcement did not.

President Ronald Reagan signing the Immigration Reformand Control Act, 1986.  He said during his comments: "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our effort to humanely regain control of our border and to thereby preserve the value of the most sacred possession of our people, American citizenship."

That broken promise shaped the decades that followed. It hardened Republican skepticism, encouraged more illegal migration, and eroded public trust in the government’s ability to manage immigration. Nearly 40 years later, the failure of that deal still casts a long shadow over every attempt at reform.

Immigration Reform Part 1: Necessary and Possible

The immigration issues facing the United States are vast. President Donald Trump might be the only president since Ronald Reagan with both the opportunity and the political will to tackle them thoroughly. However, achieving this will require something rare in today's political climate: both sides of the aisle opening their eyes and reaching a compromise to develop a comprehensive immigration plan.

Trump is not a traditional conservative. Nor is he a doctrinaire populist. He is a pragmatist, a president whose instinct is to solve problems rather than adhere to dogma. That is why he can pivot, adjust, and make deals in ways that confound both his enemies and his allies.

Already, there is grumbling within his coalition that he might shift from a “deport everyone” stance toward a solution that includes some form of legalization for people illegally in the United States who meet specific criteria. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, recently warned his followers that wealthy donors and political insiders are pressuring Trump to ease off mass deportation rhetoric.

Social Security Taxes to Decrease for Some Seniors

A retired teacher in Ohio with a modest pension and Social Security benefits could save $800 annually under a quiet provision tucked into the recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill. This targeted tax break for middle-income seniors deserves attention, both for what it accomplishes and what it represents.

Currently, Social Security benefits become taxable once a retiree's 'combined income,' Social Security plus other income, exceeds $25,000 for singles or $32,000 for couples. This creates a tax trap: a retiree who withdraws an extra $1,000 from their 401(k) might see $850 of their Social Security benefits become taxable too, effectively facing tax on $1,850 of income from a $1,000 withdrawal.

While some Republicans pushed to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security altogether, the final bill didn’t go nearly that far. Instead, it creates a new deduction of $6,000 for single seniors and $12,000 for married couples, aimed at Americans over the age of 65. The White House says this will effectively eliminate taxes on Social Security income for 88% of seniors. That number may be optimistic, but the basic design makes sense, and is largely accurate.

The poorest seniors already pay no federal tax on their benefits, and Social Security benefits are not taxable at their income level. So, this new deduction isn’t for them; it’s aimed at those who worked, saved modestly, and now face taxes on their benefits because they have a small pension, or modest 401(k) withdrawals, or some investment income. For these people, the tax system can be a trap, where every dollar withdrawn from savings makes more of their Social Security taxable. This bill offers real relief to those caught in that squeeze.

The deduction phases out for singles earning over $75,000 and couples over $150,000, which is a reasonable cap. It keeps the benefit focused where it arguably belongs, on working- and middle-class retirees, rather than extending it to the wealthy or the very poor, who either don’t need it or already receive full exclusion. Importantly, the deduction stacks on top of the standard deduction, simplifying taxes rather than complicating them.

Also worth noting: The bill's age restriction creates an unfortunate gap: disabled Americans under 65 receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits face the same tax trap as seniors but receive no relief. A 45-year-old disabled individual with modest retirement savings receives no deduction, whereas a 65-year-old with the same income does. This omission likely reflects political calculation rather than policy logic.

Like many tax changes, this one “sunsets” in 2028, a transparent budget gimmick designed to minimize its official cost. However, once a benefit like this is in place, it becomes difficult to remove. It will almost certainly be renewed, if not made permanent. 

This measure falls far short of eliminating all income tax on Social Security income as President Trump had promised. In this case, Congress played its role in addressing his concern without incurring unsustainable debt. A complete repeal of Social Security taxation would cost far more, roughly $1.4 trillion over 10 years, versus approximately $66 billion for this deduction. This provision is a targeted and modest modification to the law to help middle-class seniors while keeping the impact on the deficit relatively low.

This brings me to an uncomfortable truth: as someone who may benefit from this provision, I find myself torn between appreciating targeted relief for middle-class retirees and worrying about our broader fiscal trajectory. The federal deficit is no abstraction; it’s a growing threat. This measure may be modest, but it reflects a dangerous pattern. These kinds of “vote sweeteners” are how legislation gets passed—pile up enough goodies for enough constituencies, and you’ve got the votes. But taken together, they’re not harmless. Combine this with other giveaways like the expanded State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, expected to cost $200 billion and disproportionately benefiting the wealthy in high-tax blue states, and it’s clear we’re trading long-term stability for short-term politics.

This Social Security tax break, like many others, is aimed at seniors, a reliable voting bloc politicians love to please. But the debt it adds to will not be paid by seniors. Our children and grandchildren will pay it. I would willingly forego this benefit if it meant Congress would finally act with the seriousness our fiscal reality demands. The real test isn't whether this particular provision makes sense—it does. The test is whether we can summon the political will to address the larger fiscal challenges while still protecting those who need help most.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Medicare, Medicaid, and the Death of Nuance

Reform, by its nature, is disruptive. It makes winners and losers. It closes loopholes, redirects resources, and imposes structure where ambiguity once offered comfort. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, recently passed by the Senate, is focused on reform. The name is not satirical; it is the actual title of the legislation. One controversial component is the restructuring of key provisions of Medicare and Medicaid. Those changes are celebrated in some quarters as a long-overdue return to discipline and intent, and denounced in others as heartless, cruel, and ideologically driven. Predictably, the debate has broken along familiar, hardened lines.

But perhaps more troubling than the policy changes themselves is the way Americans now process such changes, or more accurately, how they are processed for us. People no longer approach legislation with curiosity or critical thought. Most don't read the bills, track the debates, or weigh the trade-offs. Instead, they wait for the narrative to be handed down by their side of the ideological aisle, often in the form of weaponized slogans, social media posts, and pre-packaged outrage.

For progressives, particularly those following influencers like Occupy Democrats or politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders, the reaction was instantaneous and entirely predictable: this was a giveaway to the rich, an attack on immigrants, and a move to “strip health care from vulnerable people to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.” It’s a refrain so overused that it no longer seeks to persuade; it simply activates. Senator Sanders described it as “a death sentence for low-income and working-class people, pushed through to give tax breaks to billionaires who don’t need them.”