Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for border security, legal immigration, and the 11 million undocumented people already living and working in America.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares immigration approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
America's immigration system is broken in every direction. Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the US — most for over a decade — with no path to legal status. The asylum backlog exceeds 3.5 million cases. Legal immigration backlogs stretch 10-80 years depending on country of origin and category. Border encounters have surged in recent years while ports of entry remain understaffed. Employers in agriculture, construction, healthcare, and technology report severe labor shortages that immigration could help fill. And yet Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform since 1986.
The two major parties have turned immigration into a culture war issue rather than a policy problem to solve. Democrats emphasize humanitarian values and pathways to citizenship but have been reluctant to pair those with enforcement mechanisms that build public trust. Republicans emphasize enforcement and border security but oppose the legal pathway reforms that would make enforcement workable. The Common Good Party treats immigration as a systems problem: fix the legal channels, enforce the rules, protect people who are already here and contributing, and stop using human beings as political props.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for border communities, employers, and immigrant families. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the immigration issues that matter most.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Border security | Technology + staffing | Wall + military deployment | Smart tech + port-of-entry staffing |
| Pathway to citizenship | 8-year pathway for undocumented | Oppose — "amnesty" | Earned legalization + 5-year path |
| DACA | Permanent legal status | End or narrow program | Immediate permanent status + citizenship path |
| Asylum | Maintain rights, add resources | Restrict, "Remain in Mexico" | 90-day processing, regional centers |
| Visa system | Modest expansion | Merit-based, reduce family visas | End per-country caps, match labor demand |
| Employer enforcement | Modest penalties | Focus on workers, not employers | Mandatory E-Verify + employer penalties |
| Family reunification | Maintain and expand | Limit to nuclear family | Maintain nuclear + reduce backlogs |
| Refugee admissions | 125,000/year target | Reduce to 15,000-25,000 | 95,000/year, regionally distributed |
| Deportation policy | Focus on criminals | Mass deportation | Priority: violent criminals, not families |
| Guest workers | Expand with protections | Expand for agriculture | Essential worker visa, portable rights |
Sources: Department of Homeland Security, Migration Policy Institute, Congressional Research Service, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
The Democratic approach to immigration centers on expanding legal pathways and humanitarian protections. Key proposals include an 8-year pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented residents, permanent legal status for DACA recipients and TPS holders, increasing refugee admissions to 125,000 per year, restoring asylum processing at the border, ending family separation policies, and investing in technology and staffing at the border rather than physical barriers. Democrats also support expanding legal immigration channels, including employment-based and family-based visas.
The 11 million undocumented residents are not going anywhere. Mass deportation would cost $315 billion and reduce GDP by $1.7 trillion. Providing a pathway to legal status allows these people — most of whom have lived here for over a decade, pay taxes, and have US-citizen children — to fully participate in the economy. DACA recipients were brought here as children and know no other country. The emphasis on humanitarian treatment and family unity reflects American values and international legal obligations. Democrats have also been stronger on combating trafficking and protecting vulnerable populations.
The Democratic approach has been reluctant to pair legalization with the enforcement mechanisms that build public trust. Without mandatory employer verification, the incentive for illegal hiring remains. Without asylum processing reform, the backlog continues to grow. Offering a pathway to citizenship without fixing the underlying system that produces future unauthorized immigration creates a cycle that undermines support for reform itself. The Democratic reluctance to acknowledge legitimate concerns about border security — dismissing them as xenophobia — has alienated potential allies and made comprehensive reform politically harder to achieve.
For more on the systemic dysfunction, see the full immigration explainer.
The Republican approach to immigration emphasizes enforcement, border security, and reducing overall immigration levels. Key proposals include completing a physical barrier along the southern border, deploying military assets for border enforcement, ending or restricting asylum claims, implementing "Remain in Mexico" policies for asylum seekers, reducing legal immigration by shifting to a merit-based system, ending the diversity visa lottery, limiting family-based immigration to nuclear family members, and pursuing mass deportation of undocumented residents.
Border security is a legitimate government function, and the system needs to be orderly. A nation has the right and responsibility to control who enters. Employer verification — when Republicans support it — is one of the most effective tools for reducing illegal immigration. The recognition that the asylum system is being exploited by some who do not have legitimate claims is supported by data: roughly 60-70% of asylum cases are ultimately denied. A more efficient processing system would serve both humanitarian and enforcement goals.
Mass deportation of 11 million people is logistically impossible, economically destructive, and morally indefensible. It would require a domestic surveillance and enforcement apparatus unprecedented in American history. Physical walls are expensive, slow to build, easily circumvented, and do not address visa overstays (45% of undocumented immigration). Restricting legal immigration during labor shortages hurts American businesses — there are currently 8+ million unfilled jobs, and industries like agriculture, construction, and healthcare depend heavily on immigrant labor.
The enforcement-only approach also fails to reckon with the role American foreign policy and trade agreements have played in driving migration from Central America. Decades of destabilization, combined with climate-driven agricultural collapse, have created push factors that no wall can address. And restricting asylum claims violates US obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. The Republican approach treats immigration as a problem to stop rather than a system to manage.
For a deeper analysis of push and pull factors, see our immigration explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes comprehensive immigration reform that treats the system as interconnected. On enforcement: invest in smart border technology (sensors, drones, radar), increase port-of-entry staffing where most drugs actually enter, and implement mandatory E-Verify for all employers with meaningful penalties for violations. On legal pathways: eliminate per-country visa caps, create an essential worker visa tied to labor market demand, reduce processing backlogs from years to months, and establish an earned legalization program for undocumented residents with clean records — requiring background checks, tax payment, English proficiency, and community ties — leading to permanent status in 5 years. On asylum: quadruple immigration judges, establish 90-day processing, create regional processing centers in Central America.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan pairs legalization with enforcement mechanisms that build broad public support — mandatory E-Verify, employer penalties, and efficient asylum processing. Unlike the Republican approach, it recognizes that enforcement without legal pathways is like trying to stop water by blocking the river without building a canal. A functional legal system reduces illegal immigration more effectively than any wall. The CGP plan is the only one that addresses all four dimensions simultaneously: border security, legal pathway reform, status resolution for current residents, and root-cause investment in sending countries.
Canada's points-based immigration system — which the CGP plan partially models — admits roughly 400,000 immigrants per year through orderly legal channels, with broad public support (over 65% approval). Australia's employer-sponsored visa system fills labor shortages while maintaining public trust. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act — the last major reform — legalized 2.7 million people and reduced unauthorized border crossings by 44% in the following two years, but failed long-term because it did not include workable employer enforcement.
Regional processing centers, modeled on UNHCR programs, have been shown to reduce dangerous journeys while maintaining access to asylum. E-Verify, when mandatory and enforced, reduces unauthorized employment by 40-50% in participating states. The evidence supports every component of the CGP plan individually — and no other plan integrates them all.
Immigration policy affects everyone — not just immigrants. Here's what the Common Good plan would look like for people directly affected by the system.
Want to see how the broader CGP plan affects your household finances? Enter your income and family size.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches compare.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full immigration explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into immigration policy with these pages.
Neither open borders nor mass deportation is a real policy. Read the full plan and see which approach actually fixes the system.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.