Why Do Politicians Talk About Legal Immigration But Never Fix It?

The American legal immigration system presents a paradox: while politicians across the spectrum profess support for legal immigration, the system itself remains woefully inadequate, forcing millions into undocumented status simply because legal pathways are too narrow, too expensive, and too slow. As we approach another election cycle where immigration once again takes center stage, it’s worth examining why this situation persists despite widespread acknowledgment of its dysfunction.

Our current legal immigration system has wait times measured in decades for some nationalities, arbitrary caps that don’t match economic needs, and processing fees that have skyrocketed in recent years. This dysfunction serves neither American economic interests nor humanitarian values, yet comprehensive reforms remain elusive.

By examining the political incentives that perpetuate this broken system, we can better understand why the rhetoric around “legal immigration” often doesn’t match the policy reality. Let’s dig into what’s really happening and explore whether there’s hope for meaningful reform.

The Current State of Legal Immigration

To understand why our system remains broken, we first need to comprehend just how dysfunctional it currently is. The legal immigration system offers several pathways to permanent residency and citizenship, but all are constrained by numerical caps, processing bottlenecks, and bureaucratic hurdles.

Family-sponsored immigration, which accounts for about two-thirds of legal permanent immigration, has annual caps that create enormous backlogs. Siblings of U.S. citizens from the Philippines, for example, can face wait times exceeding 20 years.¹ Employment-based visas are similarly constrained, with annual caps of just 140,000 visas across all categories—a number that hasn’t meaningfully changed since 1990 despite significant economic growth.²

The refugee and asylum systems are equally strained. The U.S. refugee admissions cap, which averaged 95,000 annually over several decades, was drastically reduced to historic lows in recent years, and though President Biden has raised the ceiling to 125,000, actual admissions have lagged far behind those targets.³

Even the process of applying for legal immigration has become increasingly complex and expensive. USCIS filing fees have increased by an average of 20% just since 2016, with some fees more than doubling.⁴ These increases place legal immigration further out of reach for many would-be immigrants.

The “Come Legally” Paradox

When politicians claim they support legal immigration while opposing unauthorized entry, they often omit a critical reality: for many people seeking to enter the United States, there is simply no legal pathway available. This is not hyperbole—it’s the mathematical reality of our current system.

The annual worldwide limit for family-sponsored preference categories is approximately 226,000, while employment-based preference visas are capped at 140,000.⁵ With millions of people who would like to immigrate legally to the United States, these numerical limits create a situation where legal immigration is theoretically supported but practically impossible for many.

Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank), summarizes this paradox: “There is no line for many would-be immigrants. Telling people to ‘get in line’ is telling them to do the impossible.”⁶

Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, similarly notes: “The U.S. immigration system is like a complicated puzzle with many pieces that don’t fit together well. For many people, there is simply no way to immigrate legally to the United States despite years of trying.”⁷

Republican Immigration Politics: What’s Really Going On?

When examining why Republicans frequently emphasize the need for legal immigration while doing little to expand legal pathways, several factors come into play:

The Base Politics Factor

Immigration has become a wedge issue that motivates certain segments of the Republican base. The rhetoric of “illegal immigration” serves as an effective rallying cry, but expanding legal pathways would undermine this political strategy.

Political scientist Daniel Hopkins from the University of Pennsylvania has documented how immigration has become increasingly central to Republican messaging despite fluctuations in actual immigration rates. “Immigration politics is less about responding to changing immigration patterns than about the strategic deployment of immigration as an issue by politicians and media outlets,” Hopkins writes.⁸

Economic Interests vs. Cultural Concerns

Business-minded Republicans generally favor more immigration to address labor shortages and economic growth, while the populist wing of the party often expresses concerns about cultural change and demographic shifts.

This tension was evident in the Trump administration’s policies, which simultaneously restricted legal immigration while powerful voices like former Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney privately told groups that the U.S. needed more immigrants for economic growth.⁹

The economic argument for expanded immigration is strong. A 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report concluded that immigration is a long-term economic benefit to the United States.¹⁰ But cultural anxieties often trump these economic considerations in Republican politics.

Status Quo Benefits

The current system, dysfunctional as it is, creates a population of undocumented workers who lack legal protections and can be employed at lower wages in certain sectors. This arrangement benefits some employers who can maintain lower labor costs.

A more functional legal immigration system would provide workers with more protections and bargaining power, potentially raising labor costs in industries that currently rely on undocumented labor.

Democratic Approaches to Immigration Reform

Democrats generally advocate for both a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country and reforms to the legal immigration system. However, their approaches vary in scope and emphasis.

President Biden’s immigration plan, introduced early in his administration, included provisions to:

• Clear backlogs in the family-based immigration system
• Recapture unused visas from previous years to reduce wait times
• Increase diversity visas from 55,000 to 80,000
• Eliminate country caps that create particularly long backlogs for applicants from countries like India and China¹¹

However, this comprehensive reform bill stalled in Congress, and the administration has since focused on more targeted measures and executive actions.

Progressive Democrats typically emphasize humanitarian concerns and family reunification, while moderate Democrats often highlight the economic benefits of immigration reform. This split sometimes complicates the party’s messaging on immigration issues.

Recent Reform Efforts and Obstacles

The last major bipartisan attempt at comprehensive immigration reform was in 2013, when the “Gang of Eight” (four Democrats and four Republicans) in the Senate passed a bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants while also increasing border security and reforming legal immigration. The bill passed the Senate 68-32 but died in the Republican-controlled House.¹²

More recently, in early 2024, a bipartisan border security bill negotiated by Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), James Lankford (R-OK), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) failed after former President Trump urged Republicans to oppose it. The legislation would have provided additional resources for border security and asylum processing while making modest changes to legal immigration processes.¹³

These failures highlight how immigration has become increasingly difficult to address through bipartisan legislation, with political incentives often favoring maintaining the status quo despite its obvious dysfunction.

Potential Paths Forward

Despite the seemingly intractable politics, there are several approaches that could improve the legal immigration system:

Incremental Reforms

Rather than comprehensive reform, targeted bills addressing specific aspects of the legal immigration system might have better chances of success. Examples include:

• Recapturing unused visas from previous years
• Eliminating per-country caps that create particularly long backlogs for certain nationalities
• Modernizing and streamlining USCIS processing systems
• Creating state-sponsored visa programs that would allow states to address specific local labor needs¹⁴

Economic Framing

Framing immigration reform as an economic competitiveness issue rather than primarily a humanitarian or security concern could help build broader support. Research consistently shows that immigration provides net economic benefits for the United States.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded: “Immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth. The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics.”¹⁵

Depoliticizing Immigration Policy

Some experts have proposed creating a more independent process for setting immigration levels, similar to how the Federal Reserve operates with some independence from political pressures when setting monetary policy.

This approach would establish immigration targets based on economic indicators, demographic trends, and humanitarian needs rather than political calculations.¹⁶

Conclusion

The disconnect between rhetoric supporting legal immigration and policies that maintain a dysfunctional system reveals deeper political dynamics at play. Republicans often benefit politically from the status quo despite their professed support for legal immigration, while Democrats face challenges uniting behind a coherent reform message that resonates with voters.

For meaningful reform to occur, advocates will need to build broader coalitions that emphasize the economic benefits of a more functional legal immigration system while addressing legitimate concerns about integration and border security.

Until then, we’ll likely continue hearing politicians proclaim support for legal immigration while doing little to make it a viable option for the millions who would choose it if they could.

The question remains whether we’re willing to align our immigration policies with our national interests and professed values, or if we’ll continue allowing political expediency to perpetuate a system that serves neither our economy nor our humanitarian ideals.