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.

Reagan’s compromise didn’t fail because of bad intentions. It failed because enforcement mechanisms were never fully funded, employer sanctions were ineffective, visa overstays were ignored and fundamental changes to existing law were not pursued. The public trusted Congress and Reagan, and they broke that trust.

Since then, every attempt at comprehensive reform has collapsed. Bipartisan bills in 2007 and 2013 again tried to link legalization with enforcement, but Americans weren’t convinced. Not because they lacked compassion, but because they had been burned before, and there were no guarantees that enforcement or structural reforms would actually occur. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

In today's debates, appeals to empathy and compassion often hide the tough trade-offs that immigration reform requires. For some, these words are genuine; for others, they serve as a shield to hide their true motives to gain political advantage. These words are often weaponized—used to shut down discussion instead of guiding it. 

Empathy is not a moral compass; it shows us how others feel, not what we should do. Compassion, when appropriately understood, finds a balance between caring and considering the consequences. When disconnected from responsibility, it becomes sentimentality—and sentimentality has driven much of recent immigration policy, with negative results.

While Democratic narratives are flush with the language of compassion, critics argue that this framing can obscure deeper political motives, especially the strategic advantage gained through immigration. Granting voting rights to up to 15 million voting-age illegal immigrants would have significantly changed the 2024 presidential election. But even without enfranchisement, their presence already provides an electoral edge. The U.S. Census counts all residents—citizens or not—for congressional representation and Electoral College votes. Sanctuary policies attract large numbers of illegal immigrants to blue states and cities, shifting as many as five House seats and their electoral votes into Democratic control. In a narrowly divided Congress, that’s a decisive advantage.

Some city mayors see this issue as a chance to increase their federal funding. For example, Chicago, a well-known sanctuary city, lost over 128,000 residents after 2010 but regained 58,000 between 2023 and 2024. Most of that growth came from asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. By attracting non-citizen populations through sanctuary policies, Chicago and Illinois boost their federal representation and get more federal aid based on formulas, which in 2022 averaged just over $8,000 per person.

Sanctuary policies grew into a central part of the Democratic strategy to reshape the electorate through demographic shifts. These policies, by ignoring or actively obstructing federal immigration law, created unofficial amnesty zones that undermined national sovereignty and eroded public trust. If Democrats genuinely want to achieve a path to legal status for those here illegally, they must first dismantle the sanctuary infrastructure they created. The public will not support another legalization if the system remains rigged against enforcement.

Sanctuary laws, once limited to a few cities, expanded rapidly after 2014. States like California and cities such as New York and Chicago began shielding even repeat offenders from deportation and refused to cooperate with ICE. These jurisdictions created pockets of lawlessness that fueled further illegal entry.

The Biden Administration’s changes to enforcement and asylum policies led to a collapse in southern border control, enabling millions to enter the U.S. illegally or fraudulently. Influence from progressives within the administration shifted the focus from the rule of law to political goals. "Compassion" became the justification, and calls for enforcement were labeled as heartless.

By 2024, voters had had enough. Immigration became the top concern for Republicans and Independents. Their demand was simple: stop the chaos. “Close the border. Deport. Restore order.” This wasn’t cruelty. It was exhaustion, a public demand for the government to regain control.

Trump returned to office and quickly achieved what Biden claimed was impossible: border control without new legislation. By reinstating “Remain in Mexico,” resuming deportations, restarting the border wall, and renewing cooperation with Mexico and Central America, illegal crossings dropped to historic lows.

He went further: tightening visa screening, challenging birthright citizenship, cracking down on asylum fraud, and pausing refugee resettlement. These actions helped restore order. But let’s be clear—this is triage, not resolution.

Trump voters can be proud of these advances, but now is not the moment for complacency. “Deport them all” is not a viable policy; it’s an emotional release. Mass deportation is logistically impossible, economically disruptive, and politically unsustainable. At the current pace, it would take over 75 years to reach the goal. Deporting people at the border is straightforward when tens of thousands are crossing. That’s how President Obama attained high deportation rates and became known as the “Deporter in Chief.” Deporting from inland areas, when there’s no flow at the southern border, is very challenging and will require decades to achieve the removal of all illegal immigrants. Surpassing Obama's deportation rate, and even Biden's in his final months, is neither easy nor likely.

Although outdated estimates still cite 11 million illegal immigrants, the actual number is likely 18 to 20 million after years of record-breaking border crossings. Ignoring this reality isn’t reform—it’s denial.

Conservatives must face political reality: some form of legal status for long-term illegal residents is inevitable. But that does not mean citizenship. It must not mean voting rights. This is not amnesty. It is a conditional, limited, and revocable legal status, not a reward, not a fast track, and not an invitation for future abuse.

Republicans should see this not as a retreat, but as the completion of a mission: restoring sovereignty, securing the border, and ending dysfunction with a solution built to last. Enforcement and reform are not opposites—they are allies.

This isn’t about giving in to the left. It’s about restoring American credibility. A government that refuses to enforce its laws loses the trust of its citizens. But a government that refuses to resolve long-standing crises loses its legitimacy. Republicans now have the opportunity, and the responsibility, to show that order and decency can coexist.

Real reform will require courage on both sides. The left must abandon its utopian fantasies and demographic change strategies. The right must reject fatalism and ideological rigidity. A new coalition of citizens, not partisans, must demand a system that values law and humanity, merit and order, compassion and consequence.

We’ve failed for decades. It’s time to get it right.

___________________________

This isn’t the first time I’ve written about immigration. Over the years, I’ve tried to examine both the moral and political failures that have led us to this point. If you want to revisit those earlier thoughts, here are some posts that still resonate today.

1. “Balancing Borders and Brotherhood." Date: July 1, 2014. Description: A call for fair immigration reform that shows compassion to migrants without sacrificing border security or the interests of U.S. citizens. It criticizes the shortcomings of the Senate’s S. 744 bill, a comprehensive immigration bill, and suggests stronger border security measures, caps on legal immigration, and better enforcement.

URL: https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2014/07/balancing-borders-and-brotherhood.html

2. "The Push and Pull to Get to the Border." Date: July 13, 2014. Description: Describes the Central American migrant surge using a “push and pull” framework, showing how domestic corruption and U.S. immigration policies encouraged illegal crossings by minors.

URL: https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2014/07/the-push-and-pull-to-get-to-border.html

3. "They Must Go Home to Central America." Date: July 13, 2014. Description: Argues for humane yet firm repatriation of unaccompanied minors to prevent a growing crisis. Recommends amendments to the 2008 Wilberforce Act and expanded aid to Central America to address root causes.

URL: https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2014/07/they-must-go-home-to-central-america.html

4. “Presidential Action Recommendations for the Border Crisis.” Date: July 17, 2014. Description: Supports Secretary Kris Kobach’s proposals for immediate executive measures to address the border crisis, including invoking INA §212(f), reinterpreting the 2008 trafficking law, and deputizing local law enforcement under federal authority.

URL: https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2014/07/presidential-action-recommendations-for.html

5. "Brotherhood and Borders." Date: March 5, 2017. Description: A reflection on the Christian responsibility to migrants, this post advocates compassion while emphasizing the importance of the government's role in enforcing immigration laws for the common good. It suggests a special status for illegal adults that excludes citizenship but supports assimilation and adherence to the rule of law.

URL: https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2017/03/brotherhood-and-borders.html

****

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.