By David J. Bier

America traditionally had few immigration restrictions, but since the 1920s, the law has banned most aspiring immigrants. Today, fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally. Immigrants cannot simply get an exception to immigrate any more than restaurateurs in the 1920s could simply get an exception to sell alcohol. Instead, just as Prohibition granted only a few exemptions for religious, industrial, or medical uses of alcohol, people seeking an exception to immigration prohibition must also fit into preexisting carve-outs for a select few. Many Americans have the false impression that these carve-outs are realistic options for potential immigrants to join American society, but the government’s restrictive criteria render the legal paths available only in the most extreme cases. Even when someone qualifies, annual immigration caps greatly delay and, more frequently, eliminate the immigrant’s only

chance to come to the United States. Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery: it happens, but it is so rare that it is irrational to expect it in any individual case. This study provides a uniquely comprehensive, jargon-free explanation of U.S. rules for legal permanent immigration. Some steps are simple and reasonable, but most steps serve only as unjustified obstacles to immigrating legally. For some immigrants, this restrictive system sends them into the black market of illegal immigration. For others, it sends them to other countries, where they contribute to the quality of life in their new homes. And for still others, it requires them to remain in their homeland, often underemployed and sometimes in danger. Whatever the outcome, the system punishes both the prospective immigrants and Americans who would associate, contract, and trade with them. Congress and the administration can do better, and this paper explains how.

Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2023. 88p.

By American Immigration Council

Over the past decade, an increasing number of states, counties, and cities have adopted a variety of policies intended to promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and communities with sizeable immigrant populations, regardless of immigration status. These policies include offering English-language classes; issuing municipal identification documents and driver’s licenses to all residents; ensuring that immigrants have equal access to bail; establishing policies to make it easier for noncitizen victims of crime to obtain necessary documents from law enforcement agencies in order to pursue certain immigration relief; and training criminal prosecutors and public defenders on the immigration consequences of convictions and plea deals.  

One subset of these policies concerns a state’s or locality’s role in cooperating with federal authorities to enforce immigration law. These laws, policies, or resolutions are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary” policies, although no legal or standard definition of the term exists. There are many reasons jurisdictions adopt sanctuary policies, such as: a desire to protect public safety by allowing immigrants to work with police in reporting and investigating crimes without fear of retribution or potential deportation; allowing state and local governments to determine how they will prioritize and allocate their resources; and shielding local law enforcement agencies from liabilities resulting from local enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

Despite the nationwide debate, there is no one clear definition of what it means for a state or local government to adopt sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies take many forms and generally fall into the following categories: 

• policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;  

• policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law; 

• policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention; 

• policies preventing immigration detention centers; 

• policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status; 

• policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government; 

• policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and 

• policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant. 

The common theme behind these categories is that under a sanctuary policy, state and local officials will limit their cooperation with federal immigration officials but do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties. 

One of the most common forms of sanctuary policy is a restriction on holding immigrants in state or local jails following a “detainer” issued by ICE. A detainer is an official but nonbinding request from ICE that a state or local law enforcement agency maintain custody of an individual for up to 48 hours beyond the time the individual otherwise would have been released so that ICE can arrange to take over custody.  

Washington DC: American Immigration Council, 2025. 9p.

By Jonathan Haggerty and Arthur Rizer

After the Trump administration implemented its “zero tolerance” immigration policy in early 2018, stories of children being ripped from their mother’s arms and extended family separations emerged. Initially, administration officials denied the existence of any policy aimed at separating families at the border. Others later claimed the separations were unintentional. However, a recent review of a leaked report from the Office of the Inspector General reveals both claims were false. This report revealed staff members from the White House and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security met on multiple occasions to craft a plan, which they knew would separate migrant children from their parents, with the explicit goal of deterring illegal border crossings. The resulting outrage eventually prompted President Trump to partially rescind the “zero tolerance” policy and fueled the political left’s opposition to the Trump administration’s handling of immigration laws. As a new administration takes office, immigration advocates have produced an exhaustive list of border policies for the Biden White House to repeal, but this administration will have to prioritize which of the Trump-era immigration regulations to address first. And, while the political left undoubtedly presents a strong case against the “zero tolerance” prosecutions undertaken by its predecessor, a robust set of conservative arguments against this policy offers the Biden administration ample, cross-ideological support for a new approach.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 212 November 2020, 7p.