The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Immigration

How Biden Can Alleviate Pressure on the Border by Making Legal Migration Easier

Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier explains how it can be done, in a NY Times op ed.

|

Migrants wait in line at the U.S.-Mexico border
Migrants wait in line at the U.S.-Mexico border. (Carlos A. Moreno/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

 

In a recent New York Times article (non-paywall version here), my Cato Institute colleague David Bier—a leading expert on immigration policy—explains how President Biden can alleviate pressure on the southern border by expanding opportunities for legal migration:

A bipartisan immigration deal to restrict border crossings took a hit last week when Donald Trump pushed Congress to reject it. It's the latest in a series of episodes over the last decade where one party blows up a deal just as the other gives in. President Biden wants to break this cycle, but to get the politics right, he must get the policy right first.

As long as the border is in chaos, Mr. Trump bets voters will continue to prefer him on this issue. He's almost certainly right. But perhaps it's chaos, not immigration per se, that upsets voters, and Mr. Biden can curb the chaos by letting more immigrants come to the United States legally….

It seems that some Republicans would just as well let the crisis at the border persist. In response, Mr. Biden must not merely blame Republicans for blowing up the deal and then leave the issue alone. The president will always receive the bulk of the blame whenever there is lawlessness and chaos….

The politics here are frustrating policy reform, but better policy could help the politics. Mr. Biden can double down on expanding parole sponsorship programs that allow people lawful and orderly ways to enter the United States.

Letting people in through private sponsorship programs negates the need to expand resources because they'll have the opportunity to line up jobs and housing in advance of getting here. If all else fails, they will have U.S. sponsors to help them out if necessary.

Some Republicans may not like immigrants coming in — legally or otherwise — but American voters don't buy invasion rhetoric to describe people getting vetted to travel here legally. Fearmongering about drug smugglers and terrorists can work when people enter illegally.

Right now, Mr. Biden has only created legal processes for five countries — Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and he has set a cap far below demand. These processes are legal and orderly. Expanding these procedures into other major origin countries and letting more people enter legally will reduce the flows to more manageable levels.

 

As discussed in Chapter 6 of my book Free to Move,  it is indeed the case that real or imagined chaos at the border is a major factor in stoking public hostility towards immigration. This creates a vicious dynamic where restrictionism leads to increased illegal entry (as desperate migrants have no other way to escape violence, poverty, and oppression), which in turn bolsters support for more draconian restrictions, and so on.

The best way to break the cycle is by making legal migration easier. Just as the abolition of alcohol Prohibition massively reduced illegal black market sales of booze, so making legal migration easier cuts down the illegal kind, and reduces pressure at the border. It also bolsters the US economy and helps people fleeing oppression and poverty find freedom and opportunity.

In a November USA Today article, David Bier and I made the case for this approach in more detail and outlined a variety of additional measures Biden could take to make legal migration more accessible.

Relying on discretionary executive action is not ideal. Such policies could potentially be reversed by future unilateral executive action. It would be better if Congress and the executive would make these policies permanent. But executive action along these lines is authorized by existing statutes, and is far better than either doing nothing or giving in to restrictionists (thereby feeding the vicious circle rather than breaking it).