For nearly 40 years, Congress has debated the issue of whether undocumented immigrants deserve legalization. This discussion has made no significant progress due to the focus on the wrong questions. The discussion should center on developing a legalization program that aligns with the nation’s needs for undocumented immigrants. Such a program would grant lawful status to those fulfilling national needs without necessarily offering permanent residency or a path to citizenship. The goal is lawful status, allowing these individuals to live and work in the U.S.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the last large-scale legalization program. It aimed to legalize immigrants residing unlawfully in the U.S. for over five years, with eligibility tied to enforcement measures designed to prevent new undocumented arrivals. The act legalized 2.7 million immigrants, yet enforcement was not fully enacted. By 1997, new undocumented immigrants replaced the legalized group entirely. According to immigration experts, enforcement must precede legalization efforts to succeed.
“Enforcement has to come first … or it will never happen.”
A national-interest legalization program should define eligibility based on national requirements. The 1986 law’s residency criteria required immigrants to prove unlawful presence but also admissibility. The Dignity Act of 2025 offers a recent example, requiring proof of physical presence before December 31, 2020, and restitution payments of $7,000. Eligibility should be linked to national gains achieved by providing legal status to specific undocumented immigrants.
Legalization as a national-interest tool recognizes undocumented immigrants’ contributions to the U.S. economy and society. The American Immigration Council highlights their economic impact, with households paying $89.8 billion in taxes in 2023 and holding $299 billion in spending power. These contributions should dictate legalization eligibility, aimed at those making essential economic contributions or offering needed services, such as military service or filling roles in underserved areas.
Under the 1986 act, legalization was immediate, but enforcement actions like employer sanctions lagged. A verification system for employment authorization remains unimplemented. Legislation continues to seek electronic verification systems. Self-executing statutory enforcement could resolve this, such as raising fines for carriers transporting immigrants without visas, increasing penalties for smuggling, and modifying provisions that encourage unsafe immigration practices.
Legalization doesn’t need to be all-or-nothing. Millions follow legal procedures, waiting for visas, undergoing screenings, and interviews. As noted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration undermines these efforts, diverting resources away from legal applicants. A national-interest program, with limited benefits, respects these differences by allowing legal residence without granting citizenship.
A national-interest legalization combined with self-executing enforcement could succeed where other reforms have not. Continuing the 40-year debate without change risks ongoing stalemate.
Nolan Rappaport served the House Judiciary Committee as an immigration law expert and worked with the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. He has 20 years’ experience writing decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals. Follow his insights at his blog.