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.

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.”