Reforming Legalization of Undocumented Immigrants

For nearly 40 years, Congress has been debating whether undocumented immigrants should be legalized. The key issue is not whether they deserve legalization, but how to create a program that meets national needs. A national-interest legalization program could provide lawful status to beneficial immigrants without offering a path to permanent residency or citizenship. This lawful status would simply allow them to live and work in the U.S.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 aimed to legalize undocumented immigrants meeting certain criteria and establish enforcement measures to prevent future undocumented immigration. It legalized 2.7 million immigrants, but enforcement measures failed, resulting in the replacement of legalized immigrants with new undocumented individuals by 1997. Experts suggest ensuring enforcement first using self-executing statutory provisions.

A national-interest legalization program should prioritize applicants based on national needs. Previous laws required immigrants to prove unlawful presence and admissibility. The Dignity Act of 2025 demonstrates recent eligibility criteria, including presence in the U.S. since December 31, 2020, and restitution payments.

The focus should be on the benefits undocumented immigrants bring, such as economic contributions or essential services. According to the American Immigration Council, undocumented households contributed $89.8 billion in taxes and held $299 billion in spending power in 2023. Other contributions might include military service, healthcare in underserved areas, or addressing teacher shortages.

Under the 1986 law, legalization was immediate, but enforcement measures like employer sanctions were inadequate. To overcome this, Congress should implement electronic verification of employment authorization, and self-executing provisions could address issues such as immigrant smuggling and visa violations.

Legalization need not be an all-or-nothing proposition. Millions of lawful immigrants face lengthy processes for visa availability. Legalization based on national-interest status can differentiate these cases, offering restricted benefits focused on living and working in the U.S. rather than citizenship.

This approach, combining national-interest legalization with self-executing enforcement, might not be perfect, but it has higher chances of enactment compared to other proposals. Failing to address these issues continues the ongoing, unproductive debates seen over the last four decades.

Nolan Rappaport, who was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee and served as immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, highlights these perspectives based on extensive experience in immigration law.