The Language of Legal Immigration

After decades of contention, we seem to have given up on reforming our immigration system. That system has long had many irrational features. For years, Congress chased the mirage of “compromise immigration reform,” and now the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have gone all in on mass deportation. Neither approach can resolve the fundamental tension between an economy that demands immigrant workers and federal laws that criminalize their hiring.

When we tire of self-harming laws and policies and seek rational approaches designed to solve real problems, we will need to go back to basics and reevaluate the very language—and thereby the principles—we use to discuss the issue. 

The Language Problem

The immigration debate in popular media relies on words and phrases that trap audiences into simplistic and misleading notions of how immigration policies operate, how they shape the economy and society, and our options for reform. Only when we address these foundational problems with language will we be able to consider laws and policies that grow the economy, enhance liberty, and are consistent with our “nation of immigrants” heritage.

Critiquing how journalists, politicians, and pundits discuss immigration is not enough; we need to replace these linguistic obstacles with more accurate terminology. Political language structures our thoughts in ways that both open and foreclose policy options. 

I can’t help but think of the late, great William Safire. Almost two decades have passed since his last column, however, so more recent generations may be unclear about his contributions. Safire was famous for writing about the language of politics. He worked for the New York Times from 1973 until his death in 2009, writing not only regular opinion pieces but also the “On Language” column in the New York Times Magazine. His books include The New Language of Politics, Safire’s New Political Dictionary, and collections of his essays.

The book jacket of his political dictionary described the volume as “a comprehensive and anecdotal guide to the vivid language of politics—how words are used to inspire or inflame, to rally or destroy.” Safire had a reputation as a conservative, but he described himself as a “conservative libertarian,” meaning “I’m willing to zap conservatives when they do things that are not libertarian.” 

If he were alive today, he would undoubtedly be tilling the rich linguistic field of immigration policy, where we regularly encounter the exasperating misuse of words. Safire would have immediately perceived that the immigration debate features conservatives who are not conservative, liberals who are not liberal, an ignorance of libertarian and classical liberal ideas, and socialism making a comeback under the guise of populist nationalism. He would undoubtedly have urged us to pay more attention to language, which is closely related to principles, to help break the policy stalemate. The point of this essay is not only to name and shame the problematic language used to discuss immigration, but also to suggest more helpful alternatives. 

Ideological Terms That Don’t Help

The most ubiquitous but least helpful terms in the immigration debate involve ideology, particularly conservative and liberal. 

“Conservative”

Safire defined conservative as “a defender of the status quo who, when change becomes necessary in tested institutions or practices, prefers that it come slowly, and in moderation.” One might recall that in Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary, Bierce defined a conservative  as “A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.”

These definitions have little relation to how the word is commonly used today. At no time in almost a century has “conservative” had a less clear meaning, and today, Safire’s definition is just one of several competing possibilities. Does the word refer to small-government conservatism or big-government populism? Is it energized by religious traditionalists or the new post-religious right? Does it promote free trade or support tariffs? 

We see this incoherence play out in today’s immigration debate, where many self-proclaimed conservatives have little patience with the pro-immigrant and anti-fence vision of Ronald Reagan. Contrary to Safire’s definition, many of today’s conservatives prefer radical and immoderate change, even though it’s far from necessary. Many are also incautious about enhancing federal government power. If Bierce were alive today, he might reverse his definitions, as it is often conservatives who promote new evils, like radical changes to immigration policy, while some liberals often prefer old evils, like the status quo.

In today’s political language, an “immigration conservative” typically means someone who wants to freeze, reduce, or eliminate most or all forms of immigration, authorized or unauthorized, and double down on enforcement. One possible linguistic response is to use conservative with a modifier. A traditional conservative, in the Reagan mold, is not the same as a new, populist conservative, and they should be differentiated in immigration policy reporting and punditry. 

“Liberal”

The word liberal has long been problematic. Writing in 1993, Safire defined it as “currently, one who believes in more government action to meet individual needs; originally, one who resisted government encroachment on individual liberties.” 

This dual meaning makes the word confusing and imprecise. We can read a media story about the state of global liberalism in the original sense and then read another story that uses “liberal” in a manner more consistent with Safire’s first definition. But even the latter is out of date in an era in which culture, as much as economics and standards of living, animates political debates. And in the immigration debate, today’s “liberals” may claim to oppose more government action, while often and simultaneously supporting it in many other policy realms.

Instead of “liberal,” we should often prefer progressive, which Safire defined as “a movement of social protest and economic reforms; a word now offering an alternative to those who do not wish to be labeled Liberal.” 

Better Ideological Language

Academics, and the more thoughtful members of the pundit class, have spent much time debating the contemporary state of global liberalism, but the correct usage of the term “liberal”  has not always extended to the immigration policy debate.

In an ideal world, we would return to using “liberal” in its original meaning, but the word has been misused for so long that this might only cause confusion. A liberal immigration policy would take the freedom of movement as its bedrock principle, deviating from it only when absolutely necessary to preserve some other liberty.

It’s less clear what a progressive immigration policy would aim at, though recent ideas from the Democratic Party might give us an idea—perhaps an ever more efficient bureaucracy dedicated to sorting the worthy from the unworthy, and to making our cumbersome immigration system incrementally more efficient at its task. While progressive reforms would lead to additional immigration, which would be welcome on many economic and policy dimensions, government sanction and surveillance would be at the heart of the process. In this regard, the individualist liberal and the traditional conservative may not have a coherent or stable alliance, but they’re united by a desire to allow more individual self-determination. Progressive and populist conservative approaches to immigration both call for a vigorous federal response, to one end or another, whenever anyone tries to cross a border.

Although Safire did not frequently write about migration and migrants, two quotes illustrate his libertarian perspectives, which are close to liberalism in how they resist government encroachment. In an essay about California’s Proposition 187, Safire concluded that regardless of whether it had nativist motivations, “a government policy of making any child’s life miserable is still an abomination.” And in response to President George W. Bush’s military commissions order on November 13, 2001 he wrote that “In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush’s order calls this Soviet-style abomination ‘a full and fair trial.’”

Better Policy Language

Let us now consider some of the words and phrases commonly used by politicians, activists, pundits, and journalists to describe immigration and immigrants, and how we might do better. Without more accurate language, we again risk talking past each other and failing to reform a migration system that has many economically and politically irrational features. 

The following paragraphs therefore contrast words or phrases often seen in policy debates with more accurate and useful alternatives. By reshaping such language, we can help promote reforms that are consistent with core American values such as prosperity, liberty, and individualism. This also helps to shift the debate away from left-right and red-blue arguments and toward a less polarized discussion of what we want immigration reform to accomplish.

Borders: Open, Secure, or Rational?

Open borders and secure borders are often found in the world of political rhetoric, but less often in the real world. We should move away from this problematic dichotomy and ask pundits and politicians to articulate what rational borders would look like. Such a discussion might help answer the question “What should immigration laws try to achieve?” 

We might think this question is central to the debate, but it is rarely asked by politicians and pundits. If we want to encourage economic growth and mitigate the declining birthrate, for example, we could make many helpful policy changes that promote free movement and free markets. Such a step would be rational because it appropriately fits the policy means to the valued end state.

Open borders, as it has often been deployed in popular rhetoric, is a politicized term, and a cheapened one. It’s sometimes used to describe any migration when a political opponent is in power. Although we might associate it with populist right rhetoric, its usage may be spreading across the political spectrum. Former UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer used it to describe British immigration policies under a previous Conservative government. 

The reality is that the American immigration system features extensive and complex federal government regulations and controls, such as border barriers, visas, immigration officers, and enforcement bureaucracies. When individuals cross borders despite these federal government efforts to stop or control them, this does not mean the borders are “open.” It does mean that the government is regulating beyond its proper sphere. Trying to stop individuals from acting in their own best interest is contrary to human nature, and trying to stop employers from hiring the people they need is economically illiberal.

Such overreach creates perverse incentives and fails to accomplish its goals. The proper response is not to double down on immigration control, but to change the laws. To adopt a phrase from popular culture, “Hate the game, not the player.” Immigrants and employers are the “players,” and they will respond to economic incentives. The true problem lies with the restrictive “game” of federal law, which they are trapped in.

But any border-focused phrases may also create confusion about how immigrants actually arrive in America. They suggest the unauthorized population predominantly crosses the U.S.–Mexico border surreptitiously, but this isn’t correct. Visa overstayers have become a growing source of unauthorized immigration. Policy professionals are generally aware of this, and they’re also generally aware that greater border security can’t possibly stop this type of immigration, but these nuances seldom make it into commentary aimed at the public. 

A more rational approach to migration management would identify the values we care about most and pursue them with the means that are the best fit to those ends. It would not only enhance economic growth but also create more secure borders—but only in the sense that we actually need them. When the Border Patrol is distracted by would-be migrants who just want to work and live safely in the United States, they have less capacity to catch genuine criminals and security threats.

A Line to Stand In

The common question “Why won’t illegal immigrants just stand in line and wait their turn?” represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal immigration happens, one that implies, through its language, that immigrating legally is only a matter of patience. Many people seem to think that prospective immigrants can just send in an application and wait for a visa. Those who do not are seemingly skipping a fast and easy process.

The reality is very different. As noted above, our migration system is complex and difficult to navigate, a veritable alphabet soup of visa categories combined with long wait times, varied sponsors, arbitrary requirements, expensive fees, extensive paperwork, and complex bureaucracies. Migrating to America, becoming a legal permanent resident, and then achieving citizenship are challenging, especially today.

It might be good to meet the public where they are. As everyone seems to believe that immigration is a system of lines, and that anyone may join them, let’s create some actual lines, give them memorable names, and let people stand in them—ideally for a very short time. For example, we can build on the well-known green card with additional colors that represent new and legal pathways for the workers we need, regardless of whether the bureaucracy considers them to be “skilled.” 

Legislators have proposed a blue card for agricultural workers, so let’s also consider an orange card for construction, an emerald card for health care, a teal card for landscaping, a silver card  for senior care, and perhaps many others. 

And let’s make it easy and cheap for would-be immigrants to apply for and stand in these lines while they wait for Uncle Sam—and ideally individual states—to decide whom to admit. After all, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over immigration, only naturalization, so perhaps the states should reclaim some of this lost Tenth Amendment power.

For example, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) has argued that states should have the power to issue work permits to immigrants, even those without legal status. As he irrefutably noted, “I’m closer to the agricultural needs of Oklahoma than somebody in Washington, DC.”

“Cruel” vs. Boondoggle and Boomerang

Lastly, immigration advocates often use terminology that has not moved the policy needle, particularly when they turn to humanitarian and compassionate frames. One of the most common such critiques of immigration restriction and enforcement is that these are cruel policies.

Safire himself noted that immigration policies can be cruel, but such framing is problematic for several reasons. First, it is reminiscent of conservatives’ longstanding bleeding hearts framing of policymaking done by others. William Safire defined “bleeding hearts” as “an ultraconservative view of ultraliberals, whose ‘hearts bleed’ for the poor, who are ‘suckers’ for every ‘sob story,’ and who place tax burdens on all in a mistaken effort to cure social ills.” 

Second, Adam Serwer has argued that “the cruelty is the point” of populist immigration politics, and that populists consider it a feature, not a bug. When progressives and other reformers denounce such policies as cruel, this just convinces the populist right to keep on truckin’. For some, the goal is to create liberal tears and not, for example, economic growth.  

Third, focusing on cruelty overlooks frames that may be more effective. For example, libertarians often argue that restriction and enforcement policies are ahistorical, expensive, harmful to the economy, and detrimental to the fundamental liberties of citizens. In many instances, the goal of such policies is to play largely symbolic but high-profile border games that do not solve real problems but that do win votes for politicians. From this perspective, the current mass deportation policy will prove no more successful than prior enforcement and restriction policies in resolving our immigration discontents. 

If Safire were with us today, he would likely use a word like boondoggle to describe contemporary policies. He defined this as “any project on which government funds are wasted.” As a conservative libertarian, he would have observed that even before the massive funding increases in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the federal government had already spent a great deal of money on immigration enforcement in the new century, perhaps half a trillion dollars, but with few clear results. Today, while mass deportation policies may temporarily reduce the immigrant population, they require enormous funding that exacerbates the national debt.

In addition, Safire would have noticed that today’s immigration policies go beyond mere boondoggles. They impose a variety of economic and fiscal costs on the nation. They also harm programs that benefit citizens. For example, one report estimated that although unauthorized immigrants cannot collect Social Security payments, they nevertheless contributed $24 billion in Social Security taxes in 2024. At a time when the Social Security trust funds will soon run out of money, potentially necessitating payment cuts, the deportation of immigrant workers will harm American retirees.

Restrictionist policies also endanger the liberties of citizens, including those that conservatives particularly value, such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as we saw in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge. And if you like mass surveillance of American citizens, then you will love what the feds are implementing in the name of immigration enforcement. We may well ask “What if the greatest threat to freedom isn’t immigration—but the effort to control it?”

Immediately before “boondoggle” in Safire’s 1993 dictionary is boomerang, which he defines as “a political statement or policy that unexpectedly damages its perpetrator; a disastrous reaction.” Many have observed that federal government policymaking—regardless of intentions—can create damaging consequences, both anticipated and unanticipated. Today we see how immigration policies are generating both, and these bad consequences are boomeranging on the American people. 

Rather than doubling down on problematic policies, individualist liberals and libertarians have noted that the best way to reduce illegal immigration is by increasing legal immigration. 

The Way Forward

Because the immigration debate is trapped in a web of bad language, we should not be surprised by policies that satisfy nobody. If and when we are ready for new and more rational approaches, the legacy of William Safire will be waiting, advising us to pay more attention to the language we use. This may sound abstract, but it is eminently practical. Safire’s dictionary begins with a quote from Benjamin Disraeli—“With words we govern men”—and with words we also shape policy.