Fix the Border Crisis by Making Legal Immigration Easier
Trying to block immigration by law just means that we’ll get it flowing around the law enforcers.

There's no doubt that there's a mess at the Southwestern border—and elsewhere as illegal migrants get passed around in a game of human hot potato. Driven by disastrous governments (hello, Venezuela) and hobbled economies, people arrive at the border in waves, creating humanitarian problems and concerns about who might be hiding among those legitimately seeking opportunity. There's little Americans can do about abusive foreign officials or the global chaos of recent years, but the federal government makes the problem worse by putting legal immigration out of reach for most so that a desperate run for the border is virtually the only way to enter the country.
For starters, it's worth knowing that those crowds at the border aren't reflected in the illegal immigrant population of the United States.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Crowds at the Border, But Not Inside the Country
"As of 2021, the nation's 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants represented about 3% of the total U.S. population and 22% of the foreign-born population," Pew Research noted in November. "These shares were among the lowest since the 1990s. Between 2007 and 2021, the unauthorized immigrant population decreased by 1.75 million, or 14%."
The Migration Policy Institute puts the number at roughly 11 million, using 2019 figures. Either way, this represents a decline from the 2007 peak of 12.2 million illegal immigrants.
Nor are migrants flooding particular states: "Only Florida and Washington saw increases to their unauthorized immigrant populations, while California and Nevada saw decreases," adds Pew (though some border communities have a different experience).
But those crowds at the border are undeniable. In October, Customs and Border Protection recorded 188,778 "migrant encounters" between ports of entry (meaning illegal crossings) along the southwest border. That's down 14 percent from September, but still impressive. Why are so many people flocking to the border to enter illegally instead of going through legal immigration procedures?
The answer is that for many of them that's the only way to get into the U.S.
Few Legal Pathways to Immigration
"America traditionally had few immigration restrictions, but since the 1920s, the law has banned most aspiring immigrants," David J. Bier wrote in a Cato Institute report published in June. "Today, fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally."
Bier breaks down the pathways remaining for legal immigration. Those include: the refugee program, which gives qualified applicants a 0.1 percent chance of being accepted for resettlement; the diversity lottery, which offers a 0.2 percent chance of success; family sponsorships, which are capped for anybody other than spouses, minor children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens leading to years-long waits; employment-based self-sponsorship available only to the wealthy or those whose work is "extraordinary" or of "national importance"; and limited, red-tape-bound employer sponsorships out of reach of all but the lucky and well-educated.
The chart of the byzantine requirements for legal immigration captures the problem well, like a maze puzzle with no real means of escape.

As we've learned again and again in the history of this country and all the others from which our ancestors came, if you make it difficult or impossible for people to legally do something they want to do, they'll find ways to do it illegally.
Denied a Legal Route, Migrants Come Illegally
"Immigration is now prohibited in a similar way to alcohol during Prohibition," Bier commented. "Although it had exceptions for religious, medical, or industrial purposes, alcohol prohibition outlawed all other sales. For both alcohol and immigration, the result of prohibition has been the same: widespread violations of the law, black markets, the spread of criminal organizations, arbitrary enforcement, government corruption, and massive government expenditures of taxpayer money to stop the violations."
So, with legal pathways to entering the United States out of reach of most would-be migrants, they turn to illegal means. That necessarily includes "coyotes"—smugglers who get people through migration routes and across borders for a fee. They operate in the underworld with all that implies; they might be decent people just working a job, or they could be dangerous and abusive.
"Despite the illicit nature of their work and being cast as villains in the public eye, smugglers have complex, multifaceted relationships with their migrant clients," Jasper Gilardi wrote in 2020 for the Migration Policy Institute. "At times, the relationship can be mutually beneficial or even lifesaving; at others, it can be predatory and dangerous. Abandonment, extortion, kidnapping, and even death are common."
Any time you hand an area of life to criminal operators, you surrender much accountability as well. In the case of illegal immigration, you also give up control over who mixes into crowds cutting border fences. Customs and Border Protection says its "top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States" and documents arrests of "criminal noncitizens." But it's easier for potential undesirables to hide in large crowds swelled by innocent people who have no other pathways to entry than it would be if legal immigration were easier and more aspiring migrants were at home filing paperwork.
Ease Legal Immigration to Fix the Border Crisis
Members of Congress are once again discussing immigration issues. But given public concerns (41 percent of Americans want immigration decreased, 26 percent want it increased, and 31 percent favor keeping it at current levels, according to Gallup), the conversation is framed in terms of security and tighter restrictions.
That's too bad, because unless Congress finds a way to make the country an unattractive place to live, or at least less attractive than their old homes in poor and authoritarian countries (they've been working on it!), they'll keep coming anyway. If they can't come legally, they'll come illegally. Not wanting more immigration and trying to block it by law doesn't mean we won't get it; it just means that we'll get it flowing around the law enforcers.
"Congress should overhaul the system to open legal immigration for any person willing to work to contribute to the success of the United States," suggests Cato's Bier.
That's a good place to start. Easier pathways for legal immigration might be the most effective way to fix the border crisis.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No, no, NO!!! The ONLY Final Solution here is for America to APOLOGIZE to Dear Leader The Donald, for having STOLEN His Erections! Then we MUST elect Der Trumpen-Farter-Fuhrer ass Emperor, DeSatan ass Vice Emperor, and Spermy Daniels ass Our Queen, Who Art Drenched in Vaseline!
And THEN we must round up ALL of the illegal sub-humans (whether they have "Magic Papers" or not), and Lay the Sins of America (who STOLE Donald's Precious Erections, after all!) upon their shoulders, and send them into the Colosseum, to be eaten by lions!
^The why ... in why there needs to be selective immigration.
Stop giving them hotel rooms, Xboxes, phones, feeding them.
Eliminate the welfare state top to bottom.
Put criminals away for long spells of hard time.
Then we can talk about opening the gates to anyone.
In the meantime, there's absolutely zero need to import poverty.
This. See the groups in Chicago headed back out AFTER the city stopped giving them as much free shit as they were.
No welfare. No housing. No food. No medical care. All paid for by taxpayers. No free legal representation either. No forcing cops to excuse them for crimes that lead to deportation. You know, stop giving illegal immigrants benefits that citizens don't have.
Treat them like the animals that they are, right?
No, treat people showing up at the border, like a 16 year old showing up to a Taylor Swift concert without a ticket. If they still manage to get inside, eject them, '...by any means necessary..'.
When was "not extending free healthcare and housing" to a non-citizen become "treating them like an animal"?
This morning, when Sarky said so.
We are all animals.
That, and it got cold in Chicago. Really cold. They were not expecting temperatures in the teens and twenties.
In the meantime, there’s absolutely zero need to import poverty.
Or even just a differential trust ethos. This is part of the blind spot (looking past the end-around of slavery and the associated political corruption) with the Koch libertarian policy. In one society, if I leave my wallet lying around somewhere (and leave) and someone takes it, it’s not a crime. The next society over might see anything short of hunting me down and returning my wallet, contents and all, as a moral-if-not-criminal offense. Conversely, the first society might see doing anything with the money other than supporting your family as a non-criminal offense and the latter country might see sacrificing starving family members to return a lost wallet as completely acceptable. The only distinction between the two societies being an abstract social construct and any issues with cutting off people’s hands, beating people in the street, or raping children being degenerate to which side of the abstract social construct of “You take care of you and your own.” anyone lives on. Tragedy of the commons but, the commons do happen, and the Koch policy, on several fronts is to take advantage of the commons to the detriment of one or more group's individual liberties.
Your example reminds me of a Ring video I saw. A guy drops off the owner's wallet while explaining where he found it and taking $20 "because gas is expensive."
Of course the ideal is to return someone's property fully intact, but I don't take any issue with the guy openly taking a finder's/delivery fee.
A couple of weeks ago I found a wallet while walking with my toddler. Showed her how to check the address on the license and walked the short distance to return it to him complete. I'd like to return to such a society and hope my small contributions move it in that direction
A couple of weeks ago I found a wallet while walking with my toddler. Showed her how to check the address on the license and walked the short distance to return it to him complete. I’d like to return to such a society and hope my small contributions move it in that direction
Pfffft. Some "MasterThief" you are...
We know the problem here: the public policy of the USA, diffused thru the culture, treating admission to the land as a scarce resource, and acting that way by bestowing all these extra benefits. If only we can disengage the "admission ticket" from the "all expenses paid" aspect of it, we can do well. But since the attitude is diffused thru the culture, it's one of these phenomena like narcotics prohibition that have become self-sustaining.
Why are we only permitted to have our liberty of freedom of association respected only when the libertarian ideal of no welfare is realized?
That is like when some left-wingers say "you can have a right to own a gun only when every gun owner is required to carry liability insurance". They want to make liberty contingent on serving this other goal that they see as very worthwhile to cut down on a social harm.
Why are we only permitted to have our liberty of freedom of association respected only when the libertarian ideal of no welfare is realized?
Because extending my tax burden to the entire world is anti-liberty, and anti-freedom.
First we agree to disagree on welfare, and we now have political districts in this country that provide cradle-to-grave welfare benefits with no expectations from the recipients. Now I'm told we're going to agree to disagree on how large the population is that it covers?
Let's start at first principles then.
Unless you are an anarchist (and I'm pretty sure you are not), you are going to have some sort of tax burden.
The libertarian approach is that your tax burden should be used for securing liberty, and punishing NAP violations.
Right now, however, your tax burden is being used for many unlibertarian things. In part, it is being used to deny your freedom of association with excessive border restrictions, and it is being used to redistribute your wealth to others.
So while you are correct that it would be anti-liberty to extend welfare benefits to the whole world, it would also be anti-liberty to continue to deny freedom of association. You get more upset by one more than the other though.
"n part, it is being used to deny your freedom of association with excessive border restrictions, and it is being used to redistribute your wealth to others."
Actually, no. There are minimal border restrictions and I am being forced to associate with people I don't want to associate with. Tax money, lots of it, is being spent to care for these interlopers.
I don't get the freedom of association argument. We should be free to associate with anyone we want to including 100,000 unemployed Venezuelans standing at the border? Thus we should make it simple for these illiterate peasants who can't speak out language to come in because someone here might want to hang out with them?
I think we can all admit our government is broke, still spending money that our grandchildren will have to pay and our tax burden is about as high as it can go under the current inflation rates.
Let's cut to brass tacks. How much are you willing to pay for this freedom of association? Personally I hate people. I don't want to associate with any more people than I already do. I especially don't want to associate with people who don't speak my language or have respect for my philosophy. What about my right to not associate with people?
NAP?
https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/NAP
I'd rather turn it around.
When we've gotten rid of all federal laws that exceed constitutional authority, and documented civil liberty violations by federal officers are down to single digits a year, then we can talk about letting BCIS have a Border Patrol.
In the meantime, there's zero need to have lots of federal agencies allowed to have their own uniformed, armed agents.
End the US welfare state and the border debate largely goes away.
End the US welfare state and between several and many national debates, the border most topically relevant, largely go away. Don’t and between several and many national debates, the border most topically relevant, go away.
The border policy that got Obama elected as the historically first, unprecedentedly, popular, black, President was essentially Trump’s policy even if Obama was more effective and brutal at enforcing it. Birtherism, Russian Collusion, Trump’s White Supremacy, the ‘Muslim Ban’ (lifted directly from the Obama Administration) was all a fabrication between the DNC and a
complicitenthusiastic participant media. Nobody who loved immigration under Obama suddenly started hating it once Trump got elected, they hated the welfare state from (at least) Reagan onward and saw the expansion of immigration as described in my first paragraph.Edit: Not meant as a rant at you Chumby.
Won't stop the haters from hating.
Don't hate me if I invade your house and your car..... I'm just exercising my liberty of movement ... Hater... /s
For you. Plenty of commenters here openly say that for them it's about culture and voting patterns.
And (you excluded, of course) I'd estimate 90% of first-welfare-then-immigration guys just claim that's their position because they know it won't happen.
When there is no gravy train, layabouts claiming amnesty will look elsewhere to squat. The nation them might even export some homegrown goldbrickers.
I've always said, and still say, if an illiterate peasant who doesn't speak the language can take your job you failed to plan for your future. Thus immigration of said illiterate peasants shouldn't be an issue. They aren't taking any good jobs.
However, we have inner cities filled with illiterate peasants who speak an all but incomprehensible patois of English so bad they may as well be speaking a foreign language. Those peasants across the border are taking jobs from those inner city peasants.
We need to get those inner city peasants working at those jobs before opening them to peasants from across the world. Otherwise our own peasants will remain on government charity forever.
Unless we dispense entirely with the idea of being a nation we owe our own citizens an opportunity for self improvement before we owe the world that opportunity.
I dunno. The hardest workers I’ve met are immigrants. I really don’t think people leaving all they know are coming for a handout. Now, that we often give them such handouts without paying for them is a crime (IMO) doesn’t mean that’s why the come.
" if you make it difficult or impossible for people to legally do something they want to do, they'll find ways to do it illegally."
Famous last words of pedophiles, who also would prefer if we just made their desires legal instead of illegal.
And seems like the notion that shoplifting is not a bad crime, so long as the value of the stolen merchandise is less than $1000, so let's stop enforcing that law. If it's not "illegal", then no one will be committing a crime, n'est-ce pas? Viola! No more petty criminals clogging up the works! See how great that works?
His argument also fails because even if legal immigration was made easier and the number of legal immigrants was doubled, tripled or even quadrupled it likely would only have a minimal if any effect on illegal immigration since the legal immigrants would still be the better skilled and can pass a background check while the illegal immigrants are the low skilled ( basically nothing more than manual laborers) at best and are on average poorly educated. The illegal immigrants are by and large not doctors, engineers or business leaders. Making legal immigration easier will do nothing for those crossing the border illegally who will still seek to cross the border illegally.
You effing idiot. You over educated ignorant sloth. What happens when you make immigration easier is 9/11. Go ask Mohammad Atta.Jerk.
100% Truth.
we’ll get it flowing around the law enforcers
Who's "we"?
No. Just NO. Regardless of what is said about a putative humanitarian crisis, the CURRENT rush of immigrants is enough to swamp every system that we have. I'm not talking about welfare systems, but about housing, transportation, employment, education, and public safety. It has made most Texas cities significantly less hospitable for CITIZENS due to crime, congestion, and sharply rising housing prices (especially at the inexpensive end of the spectrum). Votes in blue states call us racist, but we see how well it turned out when when Martha's Vineyard, NYC, Chicago, and other places had to absorb just a fraction of the immigrants Texas is being faced with EVERY SINGLE DAY. Close the damn door while we figure out what to do with those who are already here.
Unlimited, open immigration is one of those libertarian fantasies that rivals anything the Marxists ever put out. "It didn't work *that time* because it *wasn't implemented right.*" Uh huh.
Especially with the world population at eight billion. When did it become the Wests responsibility to care for every live birth on planet earth. That’s something called unsustainable and would collapse the economy with hyperinflation, currency and what’s left of upward mobility in the United States and the west.
Well, we'll be having a lot smaller world population real soon now. (One forecast shows China's population as having peaked already and facing a population of 650 million by 2050, which would be a loss of half. South Korea will have under 10% of its current population by 2060 or thereabouts. Etc.)
You can't help others if you are not in a stable place. While we are more stable than Venisualia that doesn't mean we are stable enough to absorb a large population of illiterate peasants who don't speak our language.
Especially since the West, as progressives are so fond of claiming, is the most sexist and racist civilization in the world.
...which, of course, shows that progressives have never met anybody outside of their extremely closed bubbles.
West more racist than Asian cultures? Yeah, hold on to that one.
I hope you are an old-f’er because population decline is gonna SUCK.
In a pure free market borders are less of a worry because a healthy economy always has a chronic labor shortage. You can in theory absorb as many people as want to come because the last group of workers are now consumers who want stuff and drive up the need for more labor.
Problem is just about any government interference in the economy screws that all up. When the nation was taking in almost anyone who could fog a mirror it was before the Civil War and the country needed warm bodies to work in factories. After the Civil War the federal government got its hands into the economy and our need for workers slowly dropped off. That's why we slowed immigration in a serious way instead 1900s. The free market had been enslaved and chronic labor glues began. That brought us unions and a slew of other crap that made new immigrants a net burden.
If we want to open the borders again we need more than just an end to welfare. We need a government pulled back to pre Civil War levels of regulation and intrusion.
I don't agree with that particular platform plank either. I see it as a very long term goal.
As we've learned again and again in the history of this country and all the others from which our ancestors came, if you make it difficult or impossible for people to legally do something they want to do, they'll find ways to do it illegally.
This is a painfully oversimplified summary of the problem. Although, to be fair, you did add the qualifier "something they WANT to do".
It is so simple and broad it swallows the entire legal system as a pointless exercise that should be abandoned in total.
We don't need any more immigrants, legal or illegal; our foreign born population is already way too high (> 15% of US). Eventually when the foreign born population drops to less than 8% we can start allowing immigration again.
“Driven by disastrous governments (hello, Venezuela) and hobbled economies”
And *WHO* voted for those government? Oh yeah; The sames ones wanting to eventually vote in the USA.
The conquer and consume mentality until there’s nothing left and then move onto the next greener pasture to conquer and consume.
That is were the vetting needs to be and with a immigrant statistic of 70% voting for the conquer and consume party I’d say the vetting is failing big time that's no excuse to just give up and let more in.
Fix the border crisis by actually enforcing the fucking laws there. See? I can come up with a one line solution, too.
Driven by disastrous governments (hello, Venezuela)
Can someone point me to a map showing the United States-Venezuelan border? The one I have shows a minimum of seven countries Oliver Stone and any other liberal retard championing the Hugo Chávez miracle can claim asylum in before they get there.
Or vice-fucking versa.
Check out Mr. Safe Third Country over here. Next thing you're going to say is Canada pushed the US into strengthening its Safe Third Country status when their southern border was assaulted by people from Venezuela.
Why are so many people flocking to the border to enter illegally instead of going through legal immigration procedures?
Because they would never qualify under ANY sensible immigration scheme: they have insufficient skills and education and they will be a permanent burden on US taxpayers.
The chart of the byzantine requirements for legal immigration captures the problem
I immigrated to the US and naturalized. You can put up scary charts like that all you want, it's not such a complex process in practice. It takes about 10 years and a few thousand dollars. It's a pretty typical system by international standards. Immigration isn't supposed to be easy. About one million people become US citizens per year. That is more than enough.
Even if you reduce paperwork for those one million people, it's still just one million legal immigrants because that is the level of legal immigrations Americans have chosen.
You cannot fix the problems caused by the invasion of America by illegals by simply calling them "legal". That's as ridiculous as fixing homelessness by declaring the homeless to be campers, or fixing cancer by declaring it to be a cold.
VERY. WELL. SAID!
10 years?? Ffs, you're proving his point.
Observe how the Muslim immigrants to western countries are behaving at the moment.
Some will shriek that I am xenophobe, racist, islamophobe, etc. That is not true. I just prefer western civilization and its liberal values. I prefer fellow citizens who don't applaud the murder of 1200 people.
No thanks. I favor deportation.
It’s paradoxical to suggest facilitating access to something in high demand would relive congestion. Why do libertarians oppose single payer healthcare system?
Reason hasn’t offered any concrete solution in how they legal immigration can be made easier, other than just “let them come here if they’re looking for work”. Let’s also assume we don’t live in the real world and won’t no background checks, credit history, etc.
That would certainly reduce the crisis at the border. Because the migrants would simply move undeterred to any state with a large Spanish and Asian language speaking population. And you can expect at least twice the amount of migrants pouring in from the south – not to mention untold migrants from China.
That results in maybe solving a problem in one area while creating bigger ones elsewhere in the country. NYC has 130,000 migrants and Eric Adams is waving the white flag. It’s supposedly one of the greatest cities on earth. How will rest of America handle unchecked flow into the country?
Do you see thousands of Hamas sympathizers calling for Jewish genocide? They’re mostly immigrants, supported by white antifa types. We’ve witnessed past few months an unprecedented display of hate on what’s supposed to be a liberal western nation. What we’ve seen in the last 6 years is an argument for less immigration, not more.
I’m an immigrant living in CA. If you earned something like $45,000 a year and have no kids (no deductions) you’re borderline poor. In SF earning six figures doesn’t guarantee financial security.
It is impossible to live in CA without government support. It doesn’t matter how much wealth some immigrants create. Not when earning 50-70 thousand a year isn’t enough for your family. You see those Asians driving Teslas in CA? Yeah, most of them are in debt. They know how to hide countable income to receive benefits.
There is a consequence to massive immigration, especially as the nation becomes less economically free. It’s true for any nation. Canada would be half empty still if it imported 30 million South Americans, but that might be enough to transform that nation, better of worse. This is the reality the liberals are desperate to either avoid or ignore. And they would accuse anyone making that point as promoting “replacement theory”. NYC can’t even handle 130,000 migrants, and their citizens are fed up. Does AOC care? No.
You can't help others unless you help yourself first. I know that makes liberals spin into the ceiling but it's a fact. If you go broke helping save whales, trees, gays, blacks, browns, the poor, the handicapped and every stray dog your ability to help anyone will disappear and you will be needing someone else's help.
I get that a lot of people want into the United States. As bad as it is here under Biden and buddies we are still light years ahead of the rest of the world.
However, regardless what useless program you want to point at that pushes the national budget to it's limits, as a country we have our limits on how much help we can give to the world without putting us in the poorhouse.
Any immigrants brought in, be they brilliant brain surgeons or barely literate day workers, we must spend resources on integrating them to our society. The question is how much can we afford before breaking the over burdened American Taxpayers?
Especially with inflation eating up our spending power can we afford an increased tax burden to "do what's right"? Closing the doors to more people isn't wrong if our own people are suffering.
A pipe burst in my basement. I wanted to shut off the water and start pumping it out, but my progressive friend suggested that if I do that, the water will just find a new way in - so I may as well just resign myself to having an underground swimming pool beneath my living room.
Which, y'know, I agreed with. Because, why wouldn't I? It makes perfect sense.
Can't say I expected that all the stuff in my basement was destroyed, and the foundation structure was irreparably damaged.
Expecting that would have been racist.
Next up: Ending the bank robbery crisis by having banks hand out free money to anybody who asks.