Trump’s “mass amnesty” for illegal aliens: what is it?
I have never thought that Trump and ICE would round up all the illegal aliens in the US and send them packing. My sense has been that they would concentrate on those who have violated other laws as well, and perhaps after that it would be those who came in more recently during the latter years of the Biden administration. The optics of deporting abuelas who’ve been here for twenty years just didn’t seem wise or even possible in the practical sense.
So this is quite okay with me, although many of you may be angry about it:
President Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants, but, paradoxically, he doesn’t want certain industries to lose illegal immigrant labor. As a result, DHS recently decided it would not conduct worksite investigations or operations on the agriculture, restaurant, and hotel industries.
The new policy is a form of “administrative amnesty” for illegal workers in those industries. As with any amnesty, the recipients are allowed to remain in the U.S. for now.
The author estimates this would cover about two million people. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the totals. Plus, note the words “for now.” In addition, it applies to workplace raids; these people are not protected in other contexts. Also, it is not a “path to citizenship”; it’s just relief from ICE raids at the businesses.
The author of the linked article thinks it’s a terrible idea, and that as a result people will stop self-deporting. I don’t agree, although no doubt some number will. But I think it will affect only those who want to work in these industries, and that even those people (in addition to others) know that the writing is on the wall in terms of benefits (such as Medicaid) under this administration. It’s not an illegal-alien-friendly federal government anymore. The policy also would take away some of the sting and fear-mongering of the Democrats’ rhetoric about the cruelty of the Trump policies. And it’s clear that it’s not a permanent amnesty, either.
Trump is – among other things – a practical person. I see this as a practical move. Your mileage may differ.
Trump is a political figure, like Reagan, who could make a true amnesty for illegals happen (and some graduated process for a path to citizenship for many of them), but our Congress is such a mess it’s hard to imagine the dealing and negotiating transpiring in a way that would be optimal.
The Reagan decision is from a different era, more pro-America. Not 12+ million illegals then either.
I am strongly opposed to any “true amnesty” for illegals. They did an illegal act by migrating with violation of our laws. They cannot, must not be rewarded.
How can one’s first act as a potential citizen be an unlawful act?
RTF: observing the laws on the books will be “optimal”.
A compromise in policy that the left would certainly never make.
Cicero,
Here is what the AI grok writes about your 12+ million number (your plus sign holds another 16 million, or so)
The Congress and Executive Branch have made a dog’s breakfast of immigration in our country for decades and you can see by the current pushback in blue cities and states, deportation of 28+ million is not going to happen. Also, our country, like most (all?) western nations, needs more able bodied citizens working to support our system.
Trump gets on TV flanked by senior members of Congress, Homan, Noem and other muckity-mucks. A speech is made, “America, we apologize. Your elected leaders have failed to enact appropriate immigration laws, failed to properly enforce immigration laws and failed to properly manage and control immigration for decades. This has been an injustice to you, the American citizens, and the millions of non-citizens trying to properly follow our laws to become citizens. (More conciliatory language about the harm; criminal, economic, environmental… and their incompetence…) While we cannot undo the harm that has been done, we can ensure that going forward we have an agreed upon, reasonable set of laws and processes governing U.S. citizenship for foreign born people and we can ensure that those laws are enforced to protect Americans going forward and we can ensure the physical and economic safety of you, our fellow citizens….
Then unveil a plan where everyone living here illegally has a certain time frame (months, not years) to notify the federal government that they are here, and where they reside. DOGE-like computer geniuses will have a system in place to quickly vet them. The database will be able to verify a certain percentage are who they say they are, and squeaky clean and they will be given a certain status. The database does maybe 4 or 5 other rankings; known and minimal risk down to unknown and/or a potential threat.
There’s an algorithm based on ranking and how long one can prove one has lived here and not caused trouble. The top of the heap can stay and apply for citizenship after a 5 year probation. The next group can stay and apply after a 10 year probation, and on down to whatever level makes sense. All these higher tiers get work visas.
None of the tiers are eligible for medicaid, social security or welfare benefits until and unless they become citizens.
Lower tiers that are considered too unverifiable and/or too risky must self deport, or, if they choose, report to detention areas for assessment and processing with 3 months. Three months from the day of the speech any non-citizens who have not been processed and who do not have a proper visa to be in the country and who have not reported to a detention center is a criminal alien and subject to immediate removal.
For those applying for citizenship their work history and payment into our tax system during their probationary period will be a big factor in whether they are allowed to become citizens.
The article is incorrect, as is often the case with National Review, a shadow of its former self.
Scott Bessent said in an interview with Charlie Kirk on 7/4 that the Admin is working on making the workforce in the US “legal”, meaning they’re looking at setting up legal seasonal employees and legal longtime non-criminals (other than being here illegally originally) with a work permit but no path to citizenship.
I’m ok with that–get the bad guys out and the Biden Juan-come-latelies and leave the long time good behaving folks here, but no citizenship.
bill:
I didn’t see where the article indicates there was going to be any path for citizenship.
I disagree with some of the opinions in the article, but are you saying its facts are wrong?
I’ve suggested for some time we create a new visa status, the yellow card, which most illegal migrants would understand, using the yellow, green and red card.
Yellow would be the status all illegal immigrants would be placed in– no criminal history, proof of work. This would be a legal work status with no path to citizenship and benefits eligible to citizens.
Commit a crime or be unemployed for a lengthy period of time would result in a red card– deporation.
Over time, a yellow card could earn a green card status with a path to citizenship.
Why won’t this work? Because the next Democrat congress would just change the rules and make everyone with a yellow card a green card.
There is no legislation that could legalize undocumented migrants that couldn’t turn those same people into citizens with a new congress.
We do need migrant workers. The birth replacement rate in America isn’t sufficient for long-term economic growth.
IIRC, Reagan’s amnesty was exactly that – more like a pardon after a trial.
He was promised certain legislative actions that never appeared.
That’s why Congress writes huge bills: all the rolled logs have to be tied together, because no one honors “word of mouth” promises.
Here’s a random gathering of stories: NPR in 2010, azcentral in 2018, the Hill in 2024; all of them are in accord with my recollections, although the middle one claims that Reagan never expressed regret for the amnesty, even though Congress never delivered on the promised border control.
Which is why Trump insists on border control first, by enforcing existing laws.
He may use the word amnesty, and I hope he doesn’t mean it, but as Neo’s link indicates he may just mean deferred enforcement.
See the comments by Art Deco and Tom Grey for the pessimistic view.
https://thenewneo.com/2025/07/04/open-thread-7-4-2025/#comment-2809882
I hope that Neo is correct.
One caveat on the first two before 2020: we may have been getting cartel and gang members during that time, but I don’t remember them being the blatant and egregious problem that they developed into under Biden, which is one reason people were more willing to accept lax enforcement and Reagan’s amnesty.
This is a whole different situation now.
One thing about NR is that you can often find authors on two or more more-nuanced sides of a question.
I happen to agree with Wesley Smith on this one, and would extend it to other occupations as well.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/medical-journal-dont-deport-illegal-aliens-vital-to-health-care-system/
“Refusing to meaningfully distinguish between legal immigrants, who certainly perform key functions in the healthcare system, and illegal — who shouldn’t have those jobs at all — drives me (and many others) crazy. It impedes a meaningful discussion of the proper role of immigration.”
Until employers of illegals face mandatory imprisonment, illegal immigration will continue to fester. The Japanese successfully employ robotics instead of stoop labor. Restaurants and hotels can charge more to pay more and fast food outfits are starting to employ robotics as well. Low paying jobs were once entry level jobs for teens and young adults.
MSM will naturally show most sympathetic illegals being rounded up.
When I see these stories I wonder if some anti-Trump people in ICE leadership are sending the agents to target these people in order to make Trump and ICE look bad.
The vids of ten masked, armed ICE agents arresting some simple gardener or mom who has been here 10 years is reminiscent of the attack on Roger Stone and other Trump supporters by the Biden FBI.
Just because Biden is gone and ICE and FBI leadership has changed does not mean that suddenly everybody in the organization is on Trumps team.
Much better is rounding up the gangsters, criminals and other recently arrived unproductive illegals. Easier for the newly arrived to self deport ‘
Spend effort on those, and speed up citizenship process for those who have been here and who work and contribute.
If we need more immigrants, we should raise the quotas in the legal immigration system.
But it can’t be a system that whoever shows up at the border can become a legal immigrant or successfully seek asylum. The previous administration was giving economic hardship claims a notice to appear in the immigration court and then being released into the country.
Since these court hearings were between 4 and 10 years into the future, the migrant might just disappear into the country and never appear at their hearing– since economic hardship without proving persecution isn’t a recognized asylum claim.
@Geoffrey Britain:Until employers of illegals face mandatory imprisonment, illegal immigration will continue to fester.
That’s never, because it is not illegal to employ an illegal. The law requires that you may not ask for documents until AFTER the person is hired–so every employer who follows that law potentially employs illegals.
Illegals pass E-Verify all the time, and you can’t use E-Verify on someone who is not employed by you. The law simply does not say what you think it ought to say, and if it could be made to, we’d hardly need a draconian law, a simple and enforceable one would do.
All these well-meaning compromises being floated here are how we got into this mess in the first place. It is how we got fake employment eligibility laws that require you to hire someone before you can even ask about their status.
Illegals compete with the legally-employed for jobs and suppress wages. They don’t just work in the fields and wash dishes and clean hotels and work under the table–that’s outdated thinking from twenty plus years ago. Be plenty bad enough if still true, for low-income workers. Anyone who supports tariffs to make competition “more fair” should not at the same time support the importation of human beings to compete for American wages.
We’ve all heard about and probably resent when a company hires H1-Bs and forces their Americans to train them and then fires the Americans. I worked at one company did that several times. That behavior threatens middle-class people, and we get that, but perhaps we should spare a thought for working class Americans who also have to compete for their jobs.
I can see widespread ignorance about what the law actually is and what misconceptions people have about how immigration, legal and illegal actually works, and that ignorance is being actively exploited by those who wish to worsen the situation.
But folks are starting to learn, that you can be deported even if you have a green card, and that even legal immigrants are required not to be a public charge, and that even legal immigrants are required to have their papers on them at all times and produce them on demand, and that this has always been the law, and that marrying a US citizen does not magically exempt you from those laws. I see signs of it getting better.
Exactly.
In the meantime, I’m OK with prioritizing criminals and getting to the peaceable unsubsidized paycheck earners last, by which time we may be in a national mood for a path to citizenship combined with a closed border and a larger immigration quota. No guarantees, but it’s a real possibility if conditions improve and spending goes down.
Labor force participation rate is currently at 62.4%, down from 67% as recently as 2000.
5% of the population is something like 18 million people. If there’s 12 million people here illegally, or 20 million, probably most of them working–it’s pretty clear numerically there are American humans available in this country to work.
I humbly suggest that no immigrant workers are actually needed, illegal or otherwise. I grant that they are convenient to keep working-class wages and tech workers’ salaries suppressed, and they’re much easier to manage than Americans who don’t have to fear exposure or deportation, but I don’t think that’s good reasons to think they should be here.
Perhaps the “good ones” should use their work ethic and drive as well as money that they use to get here (since it costs many thousands of dollars to get here illegally or legally), and apply them to bettering their home countries.
— Aesop Fan
Precisely. Not only did the legislative promises not get done, neither did the enforcement provisions in the amnesty bill itself. This is why all the subsequent proposed comprehensive amnesties have foundered. The public knows that no matter how draconian the enforcement provisions are, once the legalization happens the enforcement will just be dropped.
As Limbaugh once described it, “It’s a spoonful of enforcement to make the amnesty go down.” Or words close to that.
Obviously it isn’t practical to deport every illegal who has been here for decades. But we need to deport a lot more than we have before we even start talking about amnesties. The entire Establishment is still desperately craving a return to ‘normalcy’, meaning open borders and the status quo of the last 30 years. We need to smash that idea down into rubble before we permit anything else. Otherwise, whatever ‘deal’ is made will end up being an unconditional amnesty and open borders in practice.
I’m not too worried about Trump’s amnesty talk, he’s done stuff like this before, both in his first term and in his second, only to get back on track fairly quickly. He’s been sort of like a gyroscope, he wobbles but returns to vertical.
The National Review article is deliberately misleading, and it’s yet another lesson why we need to click through to sources.
1) The author, Jason Richwine, has invented a term “administrative amnesty” and claims this is what Trump is doing. But this is not the Reagan-style “amnesty”. He is deliberately using an inflammatory word, like a progressive saying “cultural genocide”. He then goes on to just say “amnesty” and the headline says “mass amnesty”: fallacy of equivocation. From Richwine:
2) I clicked through to its original source, the New York Times, which headlines it as a “pause”–i. e. something that is stopped but can be stated again, not an “amnesty”, which is a lie. What is described there is not “amnesty”, it is a shift in enforcement priorities that can be changed at any time. It’s not an “declaration” from the government that these industries will never be touched. Since all the millions cannot be deported simultaneously obviously there has to be priority, and priorities can change at any time.
It is a sad day when the NYT is less deceptive than National Review.
— Cicero
But the Reagan decision directly contributed to creating the 12+ million illegals being present. As I noted above, it was an early example of what amounted to a free amnesty. I think Reagan expected the enforcement to happen, but of course it never did, and given the Establishment Uniparty’s choice, it never will.
— Niketas Choniates
Sad, but all too typical.
There’s a famous quote, or rather misquote, of Eric Hoffer that asserts that mass movements begin as sincere ideological efforts, gradually become businesses, and finally end as rackets. As I said, it’s a misquote, but it resonates because it fits patterns we’ve all seen, even if we didn’t consciously notice.
By 2015, ‘movement conservatism’ was at least in the last part of the business stage, transitioning into the racket stage. It had become ‘Conservative Inc.’ The conservative commentariat and think tanks and so on were vested in the status quo. That included NR.
Instead of the infamous ‘against Trump’ issue, NR could have chosen to do a split issue, a double-size one, with critics and supporters of Trump laying out thier cases. They could have maintained their old role as the conservative clearinghouse.
But Trump was an outsider and too much of a threat to the status quo, and so NR more or less self-destructed over him.
At least NR still exists, and still serves some limited useful purpose. Bill Kristol and The Weekly Standard literally collapsed over Trump, their remnants becoming rather pathetic The Bulwark.
A pause in enforcement of border laws in some industries, like Rep voting farmers, is not an amnesty.
It’s similar to total non-enforcement, but limited to those low priority / Rep supporting industries while limited enforcement resources are deporting worse illegals who are violating other crimes.
It’s also similar to enforcement of speed limits, usually only after more than 10 mph over the limit.
The US could hire more agents and do more enforcement, which would increase the deportation rates and self-deportations. None know what the optimal rate is. It is absolutely possible to deport 90%+ of all illegals, but American voters might not be supporting that level. It’s clear that a big majority support more enforcement now. The OBBB has money for more agents, so we should see more enforcement and more deportations.
Then, too, more Americans working. The 60-70% Employment rate is more important than the unemployment rate, which is more widely reported. That current 62.9%, if it goes up, should track Trump popularity to a big extent.
Quite related, from Powerline. These “reasonable” accommodations for “good” illegals are part of the problem.
Just for the people displaced by the hurricane. It’s just temporary. And it went on for 25 years.
— Niketas Choniates
As I said above, NR is part of Conservative Inc. but they do still sometimes publish useful and relevant information For example (though this was back in 2017):
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/republicans-establishment-libertarians-paul-ryan-scott-walker-business-interests-immigration/
The author correctly observes that MAGA knows big business is their enemy, but he notes another problem, specifically that a lot of the preferred agenda of small business, storeowners and farmers and small businessmen, is also toxic on election day. It was true in 2017 and it’s true now.
Microsoft has recently laid off a number of workers, and this was one executive’s suggestion to them:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/microsoft-boss-offers-callous-advice-to-workers-who-d-just-been-fired-because-of-ai-advances/ar-AA1I99vT?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=baccc316e4704f4a8ad80e2bce4c7c52&ei=22
“Use our ‘AI’ product to help find a new job after our ‘AI’ costs you your job!” more or less. Granted this is MSN, so it’s not an unbiased source, but that doesn’t change the fact that this kind of thinking leads toward guillotines in Central Park.