For nearly four decades, Congress has faced challenges in debating the merits of legalizing undocumented immigrants. The difficulty arises from asking the wrong questions. Instead of questioning their deserving of legalization, Congress should aim to develop a program that aligns with national interests.
A national-interest legalization program would offer legal status to immigrants who meet national needs without providing them a path to citizenship. The focus is on legalizing those who add value to the economy. The last significant legalization initiative, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, legalized nearly 2.7 million immigrants.
However, the Act failed to enforce measures that would prevent more undocumented immigrants from taking their place, as these measures were never fully implemented. This led to the emergence of new undocumented immigrants by 1997.
The failure of enforcement provisions was noted in the Republican response, “Enforcement has to come first … or it will never happen.”
Solutions involve self-executing statutory provisions that ensure enforcement without delaying the legalization program. This involves defining eligibility based on national needs. For instance, the Dignity Act of 2025 requires applicants to demonstrate physical presence in the U.S. before December 31, 2020, and make restitution payments.
The emphasis should be on what the country gains from undocumented immigrants living and working legally. Legalization should act as a tool serving national interests, as opposed to being a mere gift. The importance of contributions is highlighted through economic data.
In 2023, undocumented immigrant households contributed $89.8 billion in taxes and held $299 billion in spending power.
Legalization should center on those providing essential contributions or services such as military, healthcare, education, and rehabilitation programs.
The 1986 law attempted immediate legalization but lacked effective enforcement measures like employer sanctions. Establishing electronic verification of employment authorization remains under consideration by Congress. Provisions, including increased penalties and modification of trafficking acts, aim to strengthen enforcement.
Legalization doesn’t need to be a binary choice. Many immigrants lawfully wait for visas, paying fees and undergoing screenings. It contrasts with illegal immigration, which circumvents legal processes. Legalization based on national-interest status would permit living and working in the U.S. without offering citizenship.
This approach, complemented by self-executing enforcement measures, might not be perfect, but it holds more promise compared to past failed attempts at reforming immigration policies. A significant overhaul could replace the futile debate ongoing for years.
Nolan Rappaport previously worked as an executive branch immigration law expert for the House Judiciary Committee for three years, then as an immigration counsel for the Immigration Subcommittee for four years. For two decades, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals. Follow Nolan Rappaport’s blog at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com.
© 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution prohibited.
Leave a Reply