Harvard Business Review recently pointed out that about two-thirds of effective strategies fail due to poor execution. This notion extends to the world of politics. The Trump administration boasts an ambitious immigration strategy, but it’s currently bogged down by countless lawsuits. Blaming activist judges might help, but at the end of the day, smart maneuvering is crucial.
The administration needs to leverage its control over immigration processes to address its limitations. The President holds significant authority, particularly in determining which foreigners to welcome. Legally, he can declare, under 8 USC 1182(f), that new immigrants will not be permitted entry until those who should be deported are dealt with.
This is a bold move—and perhaps the only viable option—given the resistance from liberal activists and bureaucratic hurdles that undermine Congress’s clearly articulated policies.
Take, for instance, the issue of welfare. Since the Immigration Act of 1882, admitting individuals likely to rely on public assistance has been prohibited. Yet, today, over 54% of immigrant-headed households receive some form of public support, contrary to the expectation that they would never need welfare.
A fascinating aspect of this situation is how bureaucratic interpretations often distort the intentions behind laws. Some officials argue that the law applies only to those primarily dependent on cash assistance, which doesn’t capture the broader picture.
Just enforcing restrictions on public assistance could save the government upwards of $100 billion annually. However, even the modest attempts by the Trump administration to clarify the law met significant resistance in court and were ultimately abandoned by the Biden administration.
Activists have effectively rendered even the most well-intentioned legislation ineffective through narrow interpretations and inaction. For instance, the 1996 Immigration Reform Act required a substantial portion of family-based immigrants to obtain affidavits of support from sponsors, who would be responsible for covering public assistance costs if the immigrants needed it. Unfortunately, this safeguard has also proved ineffective.
In reality, there are few documented instances of sponsors being sued for failing to reimburse the government for migrants on welfare. It appears that bureaucratic hurdles are deliberately obscuring relevant data; a Department of Homeland Security inquiry indicated that up to 70% of asylum applications involve fraud or suspected fraud, a fact that the previous administration kept shell-shocked until Congress demanded transparency. Many voters might not be aware that the most sympathetic asylum seekers could actually be attempting to exploit the system.
Pursuing clearer laws doesn’t seem to help—activists tend to find loopholes to bypass even the most strictly written statutes.
Take the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, for example. It was designed to shield individuals from deportation during crises but allowed for the consideration of ending protections. The law clearly states that judicial review for termination is off the table. Yet, a court blocked Trump from ending the TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans.
The real solution seems to rest on completely closing the borders until the current situation stabilizes. Activists often make it easier for criminals to remain in the country and reopen the gateways.
This approach is legally sound; it’s well established that foreigners abroad can’t contest visa refusals, as immigration is fundamentally a privilege. The government simply needs to enforce its authority accurately—citing relevant laws could be all it takes.
8 USC 1182(f) empowers the President to “suspend entry of all aliens.” If current measures to eliminate welfare dependency and address asylum fraud are malfunctioning, allowing more immigration could harm U.S. interests. The challenge lies in the protracted timelines for deporting individuals once they’re in the country.
The legal provision in 1182(f) is straightforward. All presidents since Reagan have invoked it at least once, and the Supreme Court upheld its legitimacy in 2019. Recent court findings suggest that if an influx strains government resources, it clearly indicates the President’s authority to restrict border access.
Even as activists launch lawsuits, the government can seek injunctions by citing welfare costs and relevant legal frameworks. If a broad entry suspension aligns with the President’s core objectives, it stands to reason that legal challenges could arise.
Decisions regarding immigration benefits should ideally rest with the Secretary of Homeland Security, rather than being delegated to officers, thus granting Congress the authority to write necessary laws and slow down immigration flows to manageable levels.
This may seem harsh, but after decades of activist disruption, it’s arguably the most practical remedy.
