The Republicans claim that a record number of illegal border crossings has “led to more drugs, more crime, and a demoralized Border Patrol” that is being prevented from enforcing the law. They say this has “become both a national security and humanitarian crisis.”

Their plan calls to increase funding for border enforcement, infrastructure, and technology to prevent illegal crossings. It also calls for improving internal enforcement measures, an end to catch-and-release loopholes, requiring proof of legal status for employment, and eliminating welfare incentives that entice people to cross illegally.

The Republicans need legislation to implement this plan, and they will need Democratic support to pass such a bill. Although they will soon have a majority in the House of Representatives, they won’t have a majority in the Senate.

However, they might still be able to get the Democratic support they need if they approach the Democrats the right way.

Just as with the Democrats’ benefits-only bills, it will be extremely difficult for Republicans to get enough Democratic support to pass a bill that only has provisions that appeal only to one side, like border security and internal enforcement measures.

It would be better to try the approach that made the last comprehensive immigration reform bill—the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986—possible.

IRCA sponsors were able to obtain bipartisan support with what they referred to as a “three-legged stool” agreement that included incentives for both parties. It included border security and internal immigration enforcement measures for the Republicans and increased employment-based visas and a legalization program for the Democrats.

Any immigration bill has to be balanced properly, though, to avoid the trap of asking for too much and giving too little in return, which is a recipe for failure.

The Democrats’ DREAM And Promise Act of 2021 is a good example of this mistake.

Instead of giving their bill as much bipartisan appeal as possible by limiting it to migrants who were brought here when they were young children—and know little, if anything, about the countries where they were born—the Democrats made it applicable to migrants who were up to 18 years of age when they came here.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, this would have made lawful status available to more than 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, as well as to any family members they would have brought into the country upon acquiring permanent resident status or citizenship.

The Democrats also included provisions that would have made lawful status available to 393,000 Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure participants, and 190,000 “Legal DREAMers” who were brought here legally as children but since aged out of their lawful status.

Democrats didn’t balance these benefit programs with substantial border security or interior enforcement provisions to make the bill acceptable to Republicans. The bill amounts to just another installment in a 20-year-long series of false hope DREAM Acts.

A return to the three-legged stool approach would balance the border security and interior enforcement measures Republicans want with benefit programs Democrats want. Such a three-legged stool might include the following:

Leg one: Border security and interior enforcement measures to stop the tsunami of illegal border crossings.

Leg two: Substantial increases in the number of visas available for family- and employment-based immigration, with funding earmarked for hiring more people to process applications for these visas.

Leg three: A DREAM Act that would create a place in the Special Immigrant Juvenile program for undocumented migrants who were brought here by their parents when they were young children.

I would be surprised if the Republicans couldn’t get enough votes from Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster with this package of proposals—if the Republicans can avoid the trap of asking for too much.

Of course, recent history suggests that, even if such a bill were to pass, the Biden administration may just continue to apply its current border security and interior enforcement policies.

But that does not mean Republicans’ hands are tied. They could, for example, make the increase in the number of visas and the DREAM Act contingent on implementation of their border security and interior enforcement measures. This would give the Democrats an incentive to pressure the administration to implement those measures.

If the Republicans and the Democrats had taken this approach instead of introducing bills heavily balanced in favor of their own parties, they would have been able to pass another comprehensive immigration reform bill in the 36 years that have passed since the enactment of IRCA in 1986. Fortunately, it’s not too late to start again.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at: https://nolanhillop-eds.blogspot.com

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.