Neither Deportation nor Amnesty
An Alternative for the Immigration Debate Building a Bridge Across the Deportation–Amnesty Divide
Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
This Perspective examines the current debate surrounding the issue of individuals present in the United States without lawful immigration status. Approximately 11 million individuals living in the United States lack the immigration documentation to legally reside in the country and accept employment. This Perspective relies on the proposition that the primary obstacle to an immigration modus vivendi is an unnecessary, damaging adherence by two contending sides to all-or-nothing solutions (either full deportation or amnesty). The "rule-of-law" side insists on the deportation of anyone unlawfully present in the United States. The "humanitarian" side insists that most individuals unlawfully present should be eligible to remain permanently under some form of amnesty. This Perspective proposes that minor changes in existing immigration law, specifically in the statute known as "Cancellation of Removal," offer a compromise solution for millions of individuals. This option would avert the necessity for either side to abandon their principles, or to cross the Rubicon-like barrier that full-scale comprehensive legislation currently represents. In doing so, it is possible that both the "rule of law" and "humanitarian" sides might forge a pragmatic political, legal, and policy compromise that could serve both positions and provide a potential solution to address this extremely difficult societal question.
This project is a RAND Venture. Funding was provided by gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations.
This commentary is part of the RAND Corporation Expert insight series. RAND Expert Insights present perspectives on timely policy issues. All RAND Expert Insights undergo peer review to ensure high standards for quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.