From Binary to Balanced: A Third Perspective on Immigration Reform
Immigration is a problem that stretches back to the founding of our nation. Today, the issues surrounding our southern border is a case study in binary thinking.
In his book, “The Contrarians Guide to Leadership,” Dr. Steven Sample warned against the dangers of binary thinking. The essence of his argument was that all too often our approach to solving problems is to reduce the number of alternative solutions to two: left/right, up/down, right/wrong. Regardless of the strength of each of the two arguments, the problems we face are too complex to be solved with binary thinking.
Immigration is such a problem which stretches back to the founding of our nation. For example, in colonial Pennsylvania there were grave concerns about the number of German immigrants who populated that colony. In our modern day, the issue of the southern border is a case study in binary thinking. The arguments have been reduced to; should the border be closed or should it be open, are the people who crossed the border illegally criminal or are they immigrants fleeing persecution in the strongest traditions of our nation and should the consequence of that crossing be jail and deportation or a warm welcome. As a society, we have never satisfactorily answered the questions.
Our challenge in 2025 is exacerbated by two additional factors. First, the normal flow of immigrants crossing the border was upended during the four years under President Biden. The estimates of how many people crossed the border illegally between 2021 and 2025 range between 3 million and 20 million people. In addition, these people were dispersed throughout the United States both by the federal administration as well as the governors of border states who did not feel that they should bear the entire burden presented by millions of undocumented people impacting the social safety network.
The challenge was further enhanced by the fact that the federal government refused to acknowledge that there was a problem. This position was supported by substantial portions of the mainstream media who never reported on border crossings or presented the narrative that everyone crossing the border was fleeing persecution. The result was that we had no meaningful attempt to manage this problem.
On the other side of the aisle are a substantial portion of the country who believe that President Trump is a horrible person who has no right to be president. As a result, any course of action that he proposes will be opposed, not on the merits or lack of same of the argument being put forward, but simply because Donald Trump is the one who presented it. Added to this is a collision of narratives between the heavy-handed manner in which the federal government is carrying out its deportation efforts and the number of governors and mayors who insists that they are sanctuary states or cities and that all immigrants are welcome.
Consequently, we have reduced a very complex humanitarian problem to a binary choice between good and evil. In doing this we lose sight of two very real problems. First, however many million people are here in an undocumented status, we do not have the resources or the time or the will to deport them all, even assuming that doing so is desirable.
Secondly the impact of so many undocumented people on the social resources throughout the country has placed an intolerable burden on cities and counties, on the medical system, on the schools all of whom have been presented with a problem and told to solve it as if they have the means to do so.
I have been in law enforcement for over 50 years. I have been the director of a federal agency, a police chief for two cities and the undersheriff of Santa Barbara County I have worked with immigrant communities across the country and I know the challenges that they face. I also know the challenges faced by local law enforcement who currently find themselves caught in the middle of shifting political winds and competing social perspectives. The frustrating thing for me is that there are solutions to this problem if we can stop screaming at each other long enough to move beyond binary thinking.
In the case of immigration, the binary thinking has reduced the two options to: First, the overwhelming number of immigrants who are here are seeking a better life and refuge from desperate conditions at home. They should be welcomed had absorbed into our society. Secondly, the other perspective on this is that our social welfare system has been overwhelmed and that a number of the people who came into this country in the last five years were criminals in their own country and are engaging in criminal activity in this country. Consequently, anyone who is here illegally should be deported.
There is a third way, and that is to acknowledge that there is a great deal of truth, and equal number of falsehoods, in both of these perspectives. We should accept that we are not able to deport millions of people out of this country without engaging in methods that are repugnant to the vast majority of Americans. Additionally, there are millions of people who have lived here, in many cases for decades and are part of the fabric of our communities. Whether or not we like the manner in which they arrive, we need to bring them out of the shadows.
The administration's stated objective was to arrest the worst of the worst and deport them. It is the worst of the worst means violent criminals or people who by their actions have demonstrated that they have no intention of assimilating into American culture, then they should be deported. There are at least two million people who already have deportation warrants. Focusing on this group, as a place to start should help the administration achieve its stated objectives and move ICE out of the Home Depot parking lot.
To achieve these objectives, I would like to propose the following actions steps:
1. Close the border
The unregulated flow across our borders, particularly in the south, must stop. For all practical purposes this has already been accomplished, but the legal infrastructure musts be put in place to ensure that the process stays in place regardless of which party is in power. Additionally, it should serve to incentivize people, wishing to immigrate to the United States to do so through the legal process
2. Provide ICE access to the county jails in exchange for an agreement to suspend immigration enforcement in the neighborhoods and work sites. Additionally, continue the practice of issuing federal judicial warrants and placing those warrants in the National Crime Information Center.
ICE’s stated goal of arresting and deporting persons with violent criminal history and the immigrant community’s desire to be left in peace to live and work are not mutually exclusive. Both goals serve a noble purpose and can be achieved.
The placement of ICE agents in county jails and state prisons was in place for a number of years and worked quite effectively. It is much easier to verify the identity of a person who is already lawfully in custody than it is to make that identification on the street. Further, the transfer from local to federal custody can take place in a safe and secure location.
With respect to the use of federal warrants as opposed to civil detainers, local law enforcement has been asking for this for years. Federal warrants are issued with the appropriate level of review and provide local law enforcement with the ability to deal with immigration issues in a manner that comports with the law.
3. Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reform
I recognize that people have been calling on congress to do this for decades. There have three congressional amnesty programs since 1965 as well as numerous executive orders dealing with specific aspects of immigration.
There needs to be a new amnesty period (length to be defined) for which people would be required to register. There should be very specific provisions to include:
1) Persons who have lived in this country for 10 or more years with a record of good citizenship (to be defined) should be fast tracked for legal residency
2) People who have lived in this country for less than ten years, but more than five years, should be given an LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident) visa with a shorter path for citizenship
3) Persons who qualify under the DACA program (i.e., the dreamers) should be granted citizenship
4) People who fail to register within the time stated by the amnesty program would be subject to deportation. The deportation process should be clearly defined.
5) People who have been in this country illegally and been convicted of crimes should be afforded a hearing to demonstrate why they should not be deported
6) Non-citizens should be prohibited from voting in federal, state, and local elections
7) All these provisions must be codified by congress to ensure the creation of a stable program not subject to political caprice
It is possible that I am about to violate my own rule against binary thinking, but it seems to me that we can and should get serious about immigration reform or we can continue to tear ourselves apart and accomplish nothing. Nothing for the betterment of people who are trying to live their lives and nothing in terms of improving public safety and ensuring the social safety net.
Political leadership on both sides of the aisle have failed us on this issue. It is easier to scream about why we do not like this person or that person than it is to talk about the policies they propose and achieving common sense objectives, especially those we hold in common.
I pray we have the wisdom to choose wisely
About the author
Chief Barney Melekian (ret.) is a veteran of policing and the US Coast Guard. He served as the police chief in Pasadena, CA, and Santa Barbara, CA and as the Undersheriff of Santa Barbara County. To read his full bio click here.