The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform

Immigration advocates and conservatives often find themselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum in the United States. But this needn’t be the case. In truth, robust immigration reform aligns very well with conservative values, beliefs, and goals.

What motivates U.S. conservatives

Before we can talk about why robust immigration reform aligns naturally with conservative perspectives and values, it’s important to understand what drives U.S. conservatives at a fundamental level.

On average, peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives place a higher priority than other groups on:

• Order, stability, and rule legitimacy: Conservatives are resistant to rapid change and have a preference for structure and predictability.
• Threat management: Conservatives feel heightened motivation to reduce uncertainty and danger. They have a preference for strong norms and enforcement when the world feels risky.
• Binding moral concerns: Conservatives place a lot of value in loyalty, authority, sanctity, and purity — in addition to care and fairness.
• Community cohesion and institutional trust: Conservatives generally value police, courts, borders, and formal processes — seeing these synonymously with legitimate authority.

Pro-immigration arguments that conservatives can get behind

Now that we have a bit of an understanding of how conservatives see the world and what motivates them, here are several arguments that can be made in favor of immigrants and immigration that are likely to appeal to their beliefs, values, and general life perspective.

Opening our borders makes it easier to focus on actual safety concerns

The most law-and-order immigration system is one where people can easily enter the country to legally work. This is because a closed border means more time spent dealing with the mass-processing and paperwork of immigrants seeking to come here.

Not only does this increase chaos and disorganization within the immigration system, but it deters the focus and resources from actual threats — such as smuggling, trafficking, and violent offenses.

• A peer-reviewed migration study by Douglas Massey and coauthors traces how ending a guest-worker program helped trigger an era of circular undocumented migration. People still moved for work, but now without authorization. This is because the lawful route they’d used disappeared. In other words, if workers and employers can’t use a legal door that matches real labor demand, many will try another door — one that forces the government to handle them through apprehension, detention, and paperwork instead of routine, orderly admission.
• Economist Michael Clemens analyzed the full universe of 10,658,497 inadmissible migrant encounters at the Southwest border from October 2011 to July 2023 and found that increases in lawful crossing options substitute for unlawful crossings over time. Put simply, when you give people a realistic legal way to enter (even if it’s still regulated), fewer people attempt illegal entry later — reducing the mass processing load that comes with large-scale unlawful crossings.
• Christina Gathmann’s research on migrant smuggling markets finds that even when enforcement rises dramatically, it doesn’t solve problems with smuggling or trafficking. Instead, it pushes migrants toward more remote and dangerous routes. That means that making the border harder to cross in the easiest places often doesn’t eliminate crossings. Instead, it reroutes them toward places where surveillance and rescue are harder — and essentially enables the proliferation of smugglers and traffickers.
• The GAO reported that, during surges, Border Patrol agents have to be pulled away from patrol duties in order to do paperwork. Essentially, when the system is swamped by processing large numbers of irregular entrants, enforcement capacity gets consumed by paperwork and custody logistics.
• The GAO’s recent Coast Guard review explicitly reported that responses to mass migration flows pulled Coast Guard resources away from more critical missions — such as drug interdiction. This means that when agencies are tied up responding to mass migration flows, they have fewer ships, aircraft, and personnel available to target organized crime and contraband. This is exactly the opposite of a law-and-order outcome.

If you want border control that actually maximizes safety and order, we should be making legal entry much more common (with simple, effective regulations). This way, we can turn our focus toward actual criminals and border security issues. The current closed-border process actually diverts resources and attention away from real threats.

Immigration is strongly correlated with lower crime rates

The trope of immigrants (illegal or legal) engaging in criminal activity is incredibly common. Yet, the best available evidence does not support the idea that immigrants are more prone to crime. In fact, the opposite pattern is repeatedly observed.

• A major synthesis by the National Academies finds crime, arrest, and incarceration rates are lower among immigrants, across decades and groups. It also finds that neighborhoods with higher immigrant concentrations tend to have lower crime.
• A PNAS study of Texas DPS data finds that undocumented immigrants show lower offending rates than native-born and legal immigrants across multiple categories.

Fighting crime means tackling what is actually proven to cause crime. But the numbers show that immigrants are less likely to cause crime than U.S. citizens. So focusing on immigration is pure security theater. It might make us feel good, but it 1) enables criminal activity by focusing resources on the wrong thing, and 2) wastes taxpayer dollars by doing so.

Immigration is part of what makes the American Dream work — even for U.S. citizens

There is a reason the United States has long been known as a melting pot. In fact, until the 1920s, the United States operated under largely open borders. Immigration has been a staple of United States pride and patriotism practically since the country started. Movies, books, and oral histories all talk about the way immigrants built America — whether it’s the railroad, skyscrapers, or other U.S. infrastructure.

But it’s not just a good story. There are very real economic impacts from immigration. And they generally benefit U.S. citizens as well.

• Synthesis from the National Academies found immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth. Long-run wage impacts on native-born workers overall are very small, with any negative effects concentrated among prior immigrants and native-born high-school dropouts (which is easily counteracted by investment in public education).
• A CBO analysis of recent higher immigration projections predicts that such an immigration surge would boost total nominal GDP in 2034 and increases the labor force by millions.
• A Journal of Political Economy study found that a 10% increase in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force reduced the prices of immigrant-intensive services by roughly 2%. That’s a directly attributable price-drop that benefits U.S. consumers (including citizens).
• Rigorous work from multiple studies ties American entrepreneurship and startups to immigration. The evidence shows that immigrants start firms at higher rates. Indeed, U.S. data indicates a substantial share of startups are immigrant-founded. This directly benefits natural-born citizens with more employment opportunities and a stronger, more resilient economy.

In other words: More legal immigrants means more production, more customers, more employment opportunities for U.S. citizens, lower prices for consumers, a larger tax base to fund American infrastructure, and a stronger overall economy and country.

Immigration is pro-business and pro-American dominance

Immigrants are disproportionately entrepreneurial. When skilled pathways are available, immigration boosts innovation capacity in such a way that it is foundational to U.S. economic power.

• The American Economic Association reports that skilled immigration is correlated with innovation. In fact, increases in the share of immigrant college grads are linked to large increases in patents per capita.
• In a Review of Economics and Statistics study, immigration was strongly, positively associated with total factor productivity (TFP) in U.S. states. Moreover, it found no evidence of immigrants crowding out employment from U.S. citizens.
• A study from the Journal of Labor Economics ties H-1B reforms to increased American patents. It found that higher admissions increased science and engineering employment and patenting, with limited evidence of displacement of natural-born citizens.
• Rigorous work from multiple studies ties American entrepreneurship and startups to immigration. The evidence shows that immigrants start firms at higher rates. Indeed, U.S. data indicates a substantial share of startups are immigrant-founded. This directly benefits natural-born citizens with more employment opportunities and a stronger, more resilient economy.

In short, if we don’t recruit global talent and builders, our competitors will. Most immigrants come to the United States because they want to contribute to making America great. They seek to be meaningful members of their communities. And the research shows that they absolutely are. Immigrant innovation and entrepreneurship is a major driver of the American economy.

Immigrants become “American” — especially by the second generation

There’s a longstanding misconception that immigrants run against the grain of American culture. But the truth is that most assimilate. Second-generation U.S.-born kids integrate particularly strongly and are major contributors to the U.S. economy.

• A 2024 analysis of historical census data and modern administrative data shows that immigrants assimilate well into American culture. Not only do they integrate into American culture at high rates, but they are no more likely to be incarcerated than natural-born U.S. citizens. Additionally, children of immigrants tend to catch up, and even exceed, outcomes of children with U.S.-born parents.
• A study of immigrant families across generations finds that Anglicization among American immigrants is strong — especially by the third generation. For many groups, the rise of English-only home use by the third generation is occurring at roughly the same pace as it did for European immigrants historically.
• Research from the American Economic Association shows that immigrants play key roles as both workers and founders. The research concludes that evidence suggests immigrants act more as job creators than job takers — playing outsized roles in high-growth entrepreneurship.

When you invest in immigrant families you get taxpayers, workers, soldiers, and small-business owners who contribute to making America strong, resilient, and great.

What conservative-friendly immigration reform looks like

Here’s a look at key immigration reform ideas that conservatives should be able to get behind.

• A large expansion of legal work visas (especially for sectors with chronic shortages), alongside fast, affordable processing.
• Background checks, biometrics, and quick removal for serious criminals (which requires limited, focused, and targeted enforcement — not mass fear).
• Workplace enforcement focused on exploitation and illegal hiring practices so wages aren’t undercut by lawbreaking.
• Local and federal burden-sharing for near-term state and local costs (schools, initial services). This is consistent with National Academies’ finding that fiscal burdens hit state/local more than federal.
• Wage-floor protections, better investment in public education, and training support for the small subset of American citizens most at risk of wage pressure (specifically, native-born high school dropouts and prior immigrants), directly reflecting the National Academies’ nuance.

These policies protect American citizens, encourage the economic stimulation and jobs growth immigrants provide, remove burdensome red tape, increase government order and transparency, and reallocate resources toward actual safety and security issues.

How conservatives can make the case for immigration reform to other conservatives

The truth is that immigration is a key part of what makes America great. But anti-immigration policies are destroying one of the foundational pillars of our economy and global strength.

It is morally wrong, and Constitutionally questionable, to devolve into what is essentially mob harassment. If someone is here working, raising kids, and living peacefully, they’re our neighbor — and we should treat them like one.

Exploitation comes from the top, not the bottom. Immigrants struggling to get by are not our enemies. The employers, landlords, smugglers, and traffickers are. If you’re seeing wage theft, unsafe housing, or trafficking, that’s anti-law and anti-American. It’s patriotic to report the exploiters, but un-American to report immigrant families.

Personally, I want to see anyone who is willing to work hard — or who needs to escape oppression — come here. Creating a vibrant, innovative, and resilient workforce is in America’s best interest. It’s what makes the United States an economic powerhouse.

Right now, our immigration system is opaque, confusing, and chaotic. Families get lost in the system and live unstable lives. This creates opportunities for a thriving black market.

Not only would simplified regulations and broader access increase efficiency and order, but it would increase accountability by making things more transparent. Additionally, it would free up resources so that Border Patrol agents, the National Guard, and other law enforcement organizations can focus on actual criminals, smugglers, and traffickers.

A quick note about ICE and immigration enforcement

There is a government-led narrative that ICE is going after violent criminals. This narrative is false. Libertarian (center-right) think tank Cato Institute has been aggressively monitoring and reporting on the actions of ICE, and they have found the following:

• 95% of book-ins (since October 2025) have had no violent criminal convictions.
• 75% of book-ins (since October 2025) have no criminal convictions at all.
• ICE’s focus seems to be turning increasingly toward legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.
• ICE routinely disregards and attacks the American Constitution through “papers please” policing, trespassing on private property, and imprisoning people for political speech.

What’s more, ICE has a tangible negative impact on the communities it is present in:

• Employment drops in communities where ICE is present (including for U.S. born workers).
• Childcare services are impacted — reducing the ability for educated mothers to work.
• Agriculture is negatively impacted due to constraints on labor supply and production.
• Crime reporting drops and minorities are increasingly victimized by criminal perpetrators.
• Crime continues at the same rate — there’s no evidence that ICE presence reduces crime.

These are not the actions and impacts of an organization dedicated to keeping our borders secure and our communities safe. These are the actions and impacts of an organization attempting to stifle the rights of everyday Americans and create a culture of fear that keeps people from speaking up against government wrongdoing.

You don’t have to choose between conservative values and immigration

At the end of the day, conservatives don’t have to choose between order and immigration — the evidence shows that broad legal pathways, clear rules, and targeted enforcement are the most orderly, pro–law-and-order approach we can take.

A system built around legal work, background checks, real accountability for exploiters, and a swift focus on genuine threats restores legitimacy, reduces chaos, and strengthens our economy and the American Dream for citizens and newcomers alike.

Just as importantly, it keeps our government on rails — enforcing the law without degrading constitutional rights or turning peaceful families into political targets.

If we want a stronger, safer, more prosperous America — one worth handing to our kids — then conservative principles point to the same conclusion: fix the system, expand legal entry, punish real criminals, and treat hardworking families like our neighbors.

FAQ on conservative-friendly immigration reform

What’s the core claim here?

Robust immigration reform fits conservative priorities: order, stability, rule legitimacy, threat management, community cohesion, and trust in institutions. The argument is that a clearer, broader legal system plus targeted enforcement is more “law-and-order” than today’s chaos-heavy, paperwork-heavy approach.

What do you mean by “robust immigration reform”?

In this framework, it means:

• Much larger legal work pathways with fast, affordable processing
• Background checks + biometrics and swift removal for serious criminals
• Workplace enforcement aimed at exploitation and illegal hiring
• Burden-sharing so states/localities aren’t stuck holding the bag short-term
• Wage floors + education/training to protect workers at risk of wage pressure

Why would conservatives care about immigration reform at all?

Because immigration policy isn’t just culture — it’s system design: Whether the U.S. has a predictable, enforceable, transparent process that reduces black markets, deters exploitation, and lets enforcement focus on real threats.

What conservative motivations is this argument built around?

It’s built around four recurring themes:

• Order, stability, and legitimacy of rules (clear systems, predictable outcomes)
• Threat management (reducing chaos, risk, and uncertainty)
• Binding moral concerns (loyalty, authority, sanctity, community norms)
• Cohesion and institutional trust (police, courts, borders, formal processes)

How does more legal entry increase order instead of reducing it?

When lawful options match real demand, fewer people are pushed into irregular routes. That reduces the government’s processing burden (detention, paperwork, court backlogs) and makes the system more orderly, trackable, and enforceable.

Isn’t open borders the opposite of law-and-order?

Not necessarily. Opening our borders means expanding legal entry and simplifying rules — not eliminating screening. The fact is that regulated legal pathways alongside targeted enforcement is more orderly than a system that forces mass irregular entry and mass processing.

How does a closed border divert resources away from real threats?

When agencies are swamped processing large numbers of irregular entrants, agents get pulled into administrative intake, transport and custody logistics, data entry and paperwork, and facility management. That time is time not spent on interdiction of trafficking networks, smuggling, contraband, or violent offenders.

What’s the basic logic behind the idea that legal pathways reduce illegal crossings?

It’s substitution: if people have a realistic, regulated legal door that fits labor demand or humanitarian reality, fewer will attempt unauthorized entry. That reduces mass processing and makes enforcement more strategic.

Doesn’t tougher enforcement stop smuggling and trafficking?

Enforcement alone often reroutes migration toward more dangerous corridors and strengthens smuggling markets. That is because demand doesn’t vanish, it just gets pushed into black markets. The takeaway: Enforcement without workable legal pathways can unintentionally empower criminals.

Are immigrants more likely to commit crimes?

No. In fact, the best evidence finds the opposite pattern: immigrants tend to have lower crime/arrest/incarceration rates than native-born populations, and higher-immigrant neighborhoods often show lower crime.

What’s the conservative angle on the crime point?

If the goal is safety, conservatives want policies that target actual drivers of crime. The argument here is that focusing enforcement on peaceful immigrant families is security theater: it feels tough, but misallocates resources away from the real threats.

Does immigration hurt American workers’ wages?

Not really. Long-run average impacts on native-born wages are small, with any negative impact concentrated among a narrow subset of people (native-born workers without a high school diploma and/or prior immigrants). Immigration reform that includes wage floors, public education investment, and worker training remedies this issue.

How does immigration help the economy in plain terms?

More workers means more production, more consumers, more demand, more entrepreneurship, more businesses and jobs, and a bigger tax base. That means more money and manpower for public infrastructure and needs. Additionally, immigration can reduce prices in immigrant-intensive services — benefiting U.S. consumers.

Why call immigration “pro-business” and “pro-American dominance”?

Because immigration strengthens innovation (patents, research, skilled labor), productivity (output per worker, total factor productivity), and entrepreneurship (new firms, job creation). And if the U.S. doesn’t attract global talent, competitors will.

Do immigrants assimilate into American culture?

Yes, especially by the second generation — with language, norms, and outcomes converging strongly over time. The bottom line: immigration isn’t permanent separateness. It’s often a pipeline into full civic and cultural integration.

If assimilation happens, why do people still worry about cultural change?

Because conservatives often prioritize stability and tradition, and rapid demographic change can feel like disorder — even if long-term assimilation is strong. It’s important to recognize that the evidence shows integration is the norm across generations.

What does conservative-friendly immigration reform look like?

Basically:

• Expand legal work visas and reduce processing friction
• Screen thoroughly (checks/biometrics), remove serious criminals quickly
• Punish exploitative employers and illegal hiring
• Share costs with states/localities in the short term
• Protect wages and invest in training/education where needed

Why focus on workplace enforcement around exploitation and illegal hiring?

Wage undercutting and labor abuse come from lawbreaking at the top (bad employers, coercive practices), not from families trying to survive. Enforcement should target the incentives and exploitation that create disorder and resentment.

What’s the moral argument here that conservatives might accept?

If someone is working, raising kids and living peacefully, they’re part of our community. Law and order should mean targeting criminals and exploiters, not harassing peaceful families. Reporting trafficking, wage theft, or unsafe housing is patriotic, while reporting immigrant families is un-American.

What’s your quick TLDR pitch to a conservative friend?

Immigration strengthens U.S. power and prosperity. The current system creates chaos and black markets. More legal pathways + clear rules = more order and accountability. Focus enforcement on criminals, smugglers, traffickers, and exploiters. Protect wages with wage floors and training where needed. Treat peaceful working families like neighbors — don’t erode constitutional norms with security theater.

What about ICE — aren’t they focused on violent criminals?

Monitoring from libertarian think tank Cato Institute shows ICE enforcement patterns frequently sweep up many nonviolent people, including some legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens. Enforcement should be precise, transparent, and constitutional, not broad, fear-driven, or politically targeted.

How can conservatives argue for reform without sounding soft?

Use conservative language and priorities:

• “Orderly legal entry reduces illegal entry.”
• “Targeted enforcement is smarter than mass processing.”
• “Punish exploiters — they’re the real lawbreakers.”
• “Background checks and biometrics protect the country.”
• “Wage protections defend American workers.”
• “A transparent system restores rule legitimacy.”