No one truly knows how many “illegal immigrants” there are in the United States, or the various categories they may fall into. Millions have entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas, and they too are classified as “illegal immigrants.” Some came with their families, crossing through borders or arriving by plane, making them “illegal immigrants” as well.
Take, for instance, those who crossed the border illegally back in 1987—it’s been nearly 40 years since then. The last significant “pardon” for illegal immigrants took place under President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Anyone entering illegally after that time is considered “illegal” unless they manage to secure sponsorship or complete the necessary paperwork for a green card.
This week, former President Donald Trump acted decisively to close the southern border. Yet, despite these efforts, it seems like immigrants always find ways to slip through. It’s evident that Trump could shut things down rapidly, even while some may argue that President Biden needs to implement new laws to manage the situation, but that concern might fade away soon.
It’s perplexing that Democrats took steps to open the borders, facing numerous and severe repercussions from a surge of illegal migration. The Biden-Harris administration’s choice allowed for this influx, which not only affects the individuals involved but also the local and national systems dealing with the consequences, including crime tied to this new wave of immigrants.
The ongoing issues stemming from the Democrats’ decisions should be pivotal concerns for voters in every election cycle. Many believe they should not overlook accusations against the party while allowing unchecked growth among their ranks. Both the White House and Congress seem to have forgotten the critical issues that were front and center in the elections of 2026, 2030, and beyond.
Now, American lawmakers face the daunting task of addressing the fate of tens of millions currently residing here. There’s talk of “normalization” for this population, which was notably raised in discussions with Trump last week. It’s interesting, perhaps even strategic, to avoid the term “pardon,” which implies an immediate path to citizenship. Instead, the focus is on recognizing the good people among those who have entered illegally.
Trump expressed an understanding of the situation, indicating they were monitoring it closely. There’s a sense of realism here—many hardworking individuals might still be grappling with their immigration status. His key advisors are rightly concentrating on addressing issues of crime and potential threats, but the massive task of regularizing millions under sensible laws looms large.
If “hard work and law compliance” became the guiding principle for Trump, it could reshape the conversation around immigration. So what would a normalization process actually entail?
America has navigated massive tasks in the past when categorizing people, especially during military drafts, which were quite visible and controversial, notably at the end of the Vietnam War. The draft system was developed post-Korean War and had been in place for a long time until the “volunteer” army model took over. The country had relied on conscription through its major wars, but it’s been a while since that approach was utilized.
In earlier draft eras, local committees would assess young men, classifying them in terms of eligibility, and there were appeals processes in place. Considering a similar framework to address the current situation with illegal immigrants could work; a bipartisan approach seems necessary for this “normalization committee.” That could encourage lawful behavior while rewarding those doing right.
With many immigrants already working, it raises questions about whether regularization should hinge on active employment. Still, ensuring that current employers are not engaged in hidden illegal activities shouldn’t block the path to regularization. There could be open-ended requests for applicants to demonstrate their contributions—think tax returns, utility bills, or community references—essentially showcasing their lives and why they deserve normalization.
This broader perspective addresses the reality of millions living here without permission. It seems reasonable to narrow the focus of resources aimed at immigration management. The economy, after all, thrives on industrious and eager individuals, and there’s no need for assumptions about chain transitions influencing policy decisions. A combination of robust border management alongside a sense of compassion could resonate with the majority of Americans, reflecting a moderate position on immigration.
In a recent conversation with Trump, I highlighted that while he’s begun a political realignment, previous efforts had faltered. Looking back, it’s evident that past shifts haven’t steered the Democratic Party toward moderation. If Trump opts for a regularization initiative, paired with stringent measures against crime, it could redefine his legacy and mark a significant political moment—akin to Nixon’s groundbreaking relations with China.
