Now that Trump has demonstrated what Americans don't want in immigration enforcement, what's next?
Taking Gallego's immigration framework seriously.
I’m not buying the Ruben Gallego for president thing.
It is understandable that there would be curiosity about Gallego among national Democrats, given that he comfortably won a U.S. Senate race in a swing state, Arizona, that Donald Trump also won comfortably. That’s of interest to a political party licking its wounds. And Gallego has a personal story – hardscrabble Latino background, Harvard education, battle-tested Marine – that adds to the intrigue.
And it’s understandable that Gallego is catering to this interest. It adds to his political capital, which can prove beneficial in a variety of ways.
However, the Democratic primaries in 2028 are likely to be a free-for-all, with no clear front-runner and what the party stands for up for grabs. Gallego has proven adept at putting together effective campaigns at the state legislative, congressional, and state levels. Immediately gearing that up to a national scale seems highly improbable, either in fundraising or grassroots organizing.
Gallego doesn’t have the rhetorical gifts that made Barack Obama a credible national candidate with an even greener resume. And Obama had a clearer path to the nomination: establish himself as the principal challenger to front-runner Hillary Clinton and then beat her. At this point, there is no such obvious path to the 2028 nomination, for Gallego or anyone else.
However, the attention gives Gallego an opportunity to be something he hasn’t been as a state legislator or congressman: a consequential lawmaker. And there is at least some indication that Gallego does have an interest in being a serious legislator. He reportedly played a consequential role in the digital currency regulation bill that was recently enacted.
He could have the opportunity – and I admit I am reaching here – to help resolve an important domestic issue that has vexed American politics for decades: immigration reform.
The reversal in public opinion about Trump and immigration is stunning. The issue is given substantial credit for his victory in 2024. However, just six months into his term, a substantial majority of respondents in polls disapprove of his handling of the issue.
Joe Biden had shown voters what they didn’t want regarding immigration: a disorderly border and seemingly no control over who was coming into the country. Trump is showing voters what else they don’t want: the thuggish rounding up of illegal immigrants who have established settled and productive lives in the country. Polls had already indicated that. But seeing it play out on a repetitive loop has made it politically salient.
Trump’s indiscriminate drive toward mass deportations, running roughshod over the law and due process on the way, may – and I again acknowledge a reach – create the elusive political conditions for comprehensive immigration reform.
That obviously won’t be even a prospect so long as Republicans retain control of either chamber of Congress. But let’s assume that Democrats take over both chambers in 2026 and that Trump’s thuggish mass deportation program remains unpopular.
Unlike tariffs, I don’t think Trump really cares about immigration. It’s an issue that, heretofore, it has been politically profitable for him to demagogue. If the politics are working against him, he might be willing to deal. In his first term, Trump publicly mooted a deal for dreamers, illegal immigrants brought to this country as children.
And if the border remains reasonably orderly, there may be more political room for Democrats to run more boldly on comprehensive immigration reform in 2028 and actually do something about it if they gain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.
If comprehensive immigration reform returns to the public agenda, Gallego, as a Latino senator from a border state, could have the status to shape the substance and the politics – provided he in the interim establishes himself as a serious legislator and not just another pontificating, partisan popinjay.
Gallego put down a marker on the issue earlier this year with the release of what he called a “plan for border security and immigration reform”. There aren’t enough specifics in the document to really qualify as a “plan”. But it does offer an outline worth a serious look.
The keys to controlling future immigration are asylum reform and the mandatory use of E-Verify to determine eligibility to work legally in this country.
What overwhelmed the Biden administration wasn’t really illegal immigration, people seeking to enter the country without getting caught. It was people turning themselves in and asking for asylum. If an asylum officer determined that the applicant had a credible fear about returning to their home country, they were to be released into the United States with a work permit, pending a hearing before an immigration judge, which wouldn’t take place for years. Even though most asylum claims are ultimately turned down, making an application was a way to gain at least temporary legal status.
The Trump administration has shut down this avenue by essentially refusing to accept any asylum claims. As with much of what the administration is doing on immigration, the legality of this is dubious.
Making it tougher to get into the country on an initial screening and expediting a final adjudication are what could make a legal and sustainable difference. Gallego’s framework calls for a tougher initial screening standard, but doesn’t specify what it should be, which is a tricky thing to formulate.
To expedite a final adjudication, Gallego proposes, as did the Biden administration, that asylum officers, rather than immigration judges, should be empowered to make the decision. I don’t think that’s a good idea. There are legal questions involved that merit the judgment of judges. And having the decision made by quasi-independent judges would create more uniformity and continuity across administrations.
The recently enacted budget reconciliation bill spends gobs of money on border enforcement. Gallego’s framework also calls for increased border enforcement expenditures. In reality, asylum reform and mandatory use of E-Verify will effectively control future immigration. Where a spending surge is needed, at least temporarily, is in immigration judges to clear out the backlog.
E-Verify is a federal program that electronically verifies work eligibility. The only way to beat it is to use someone’s actual name and Social Security number. If the federal government got serious about it, that would be an easy fraud to detect and deter. If Robert Robb is drawing Social Security retirement benefits in Arizona and simultaneously working construction in North Carolina, something is obviously amiss. And determining and tracking down the impostor wouldn’t be difficult.
Right now, the federal government makes use of the E-Verify system voluntary except for government contractors. Making it universal would effectively lock out illegal workers from the formal U.S. economy, largely draining one of the biggest draws for illegal immigration. In his framework, Gallego supports a gradual requirement to use E-Verify. It doesn’t really need to be very gradual.
From the adverse public reaction to Trump’s mass deportation program, if voters were convinced that future immigration would be legal and under control, which the combination of asylum reform and E-Verify could provide, there is reason to believe that there would be acceptance of some form of legal status for those here illegally but who have established settled and productive lives.
Here, Gallego’s framework is surprisingly circumspect. There is legal status and a path to citizenship for dreamers and those with a spouse who has legal status. But not a general amnesty. If we reach this point politically, a clean sweep would be in order, rather than leaving some still in legal limbo.
Gallego also supports increased legal immigration going forward. For high-skilled immigrants, that should be a no-brainer. They create cascading and broadly radiating economic benefits. The difficult policy question is how much additional low-skilled labor the country should admit. Gallego doesn’t address the knotty trade-offs involved.
Still, Gallego’s framework is a serious effort to set the stage for a revived consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. Who would have thought that Donald Trump might be the guy who, inadvertently through his overreach, made the revival possible.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.