Remaking the nation's immigration system has been a central theme of President Donald Trump's tenure in the White House, meaning the 2020 elections will likely serve as a referendum on his actions so far and an opportunity for Democrats to propose a different path.

From the treatment of asylum-seeking Central Americans to the fate of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S., the 2020 campaign is expected to feature intense disagreements over how many and what kind of immigrants are allowed to enter the U.S.

The outcome of those contests will decide the fate of millions of would-be immigrants, and affect the lives of millions of Americans whose neighbors, co-workers and classmates are increasingly foreign-born. 

As Democratic presidential candidates continue developing their immigration proposals, here's a look at the key issues they'll face on the campaign trail and where both parties have generally stood on each topic.


Trump moved in 2017 to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has shielded from deportation more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children and granted them work permits.

Federal courts have blocked Trump from ending the program, but the Justice Department is appealing those rulings. That means the program remains active, but the Supreme Court could take up the case later this year.

Most Democrats, and some Republicans, want to grant permanent protections to DACA recipients and put them on a path to U.S. citizenship. Some Republicans, including immigration hardliners within the Trump administration, claim former President Barack Obama exceeded his executive authority when he created DACA in 2012. They oppose bills that would grant DACA recipients permanent protections.

The key questions on the campaign trail will be whether, and how many, so-called "dreamers" should be protected. More than 800,000 undocumented immigrants have been approved for DACA since the program started in 2012, but there are an estimated 3.6 million total "dreamers" who were brought to the U.S. as children. 

Temporary Protected Status

In a similar move, the Trump administration has tried to phase out the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which has allowed more than 300,000 foreigners to legally live and work in the U.S. as their home countries recover from natural disasters and armed conflicts. 

Federal courts have blocked Trump from ending those protections. But the Justice Department is appealing and the case could end up before the Supreme Court.

Just like DACA, most Democrats, and some Republicans, want to grant permanent protections to TPS recipients and put them on a path to U.S. citizenship. Most TPS recipients have lived in the U.S. for more than two decades, and supporters say its unfair to force them to return to their home countries after establishing their lives in the U.S. 

But some Republicans, including hardliners within the Trump administration, say the program was always intended to be temporary and has been extended for far too long. They say most of the 10 countries on the TPS list have recovered — including Haiti, Honduras and Nepal – and are ready to handle the return of their citizens. 

The key questions on the campaign trail will be whether the TPS program should be eliminated entirely, whether it should be reformed to end more quickly in the future, and what to do with the 300,000 TPS recipients already in the program.

11 million undocumented immigrants

One of the most vexing and long-standing debates between Republicans and Democrats has been over the fate of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

That population exploded throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, peaking at 12.2 million in 2007, according to the Pew Research Center. The number of undocumented immigrants has been steadily falling ever since as the Mexican economy has improved and more Mexican citizens have returned to their country. But that still leaves 11 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the U.S.

Democrats have consistently pushed for a "pathway to citizenship" that includes criminal background checks, payment of back taxes, and other qualifications. Many Republicans have labeled such plans as "amnesty" that would unfairly reward people who knowingly violated U.S. laws.

A central debate during the campaign will be whether to provide a pathway to citizenship, or forever bar undocumented immigrants from citizenship.

Family separations

The summer of 2018 was defined by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of more than 2,800 migrant families that had crossed the southern border. 

That plan was panned by so many people in both political parties that it led Trump to issue a rare about-face when he signed an executive order in June to stop the family separations. A federal judge went a step further just a few days later, ordering the administration to reunite all those families in a case that continues to identify additional families that were separated starting as early as 2017.

While the systemic policy of family separations has ended, Border Patrol agents continue separating migrant families, albeit in smaller numbers.

Show Thumbnails
Show Captions

The main questions facing candidates will be whether the system needs to be regulated more closely by Congress, and whether immigration judges should be required to approve future separations.

Asylum and refuge in the U.S.

The Trump administration has tried to slow down, and in some cases halt entirely, the ability of foreigners to seek refuge in the U.S.

Asylum and refugee status are granted to foreigners who fear persecution in their home country based on their religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The main difference is that refugees make their request while living abroad, and asylum seekers make their request after arriving in the U.S.

White House officials have claimed both systems are fraught with abuse and vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists. They've taken multiple steps to limit each program, such as instituting a controversial travel ban that temporarily shut down the refugee program entirely and implementing multiple policies to limit asylum along the southern border.

Several of those polices have been blocked by federal judges.

Democrats say closing America's doors to the most vulnerable people in the world destroys the centuries-old ideal of the U.S. as a beacon of hope for oppressed people of the world.

The key questions on the campaign trail will be how to reform the existing asylum laws to handle the record numbers of Central American families that are coming each month, and the proper role of the refugee system for Syrians and others.

Treatment of migrants in detention

The Department of Homeland Security says it has been overwhelmed by the record number of migrants crossing the border each day, leaving Border Patrol stations and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers unable to house them all. That has led the department to house migrants in tent cities, outside Border Patrol facilities and even under a highway overpass in El Paso, Texas. 

At least six migrant children died in those conditions over a span of eight months.

Homeland Security has requested more than $1 billion from Congress to improve conditions for migrants and have ordered mandatory medical screenings of arriving children. The Trump administration says the situation won't improve until Congress changes U.S. asylum laws. 

Democrats place the blame solely on the Trump administration, arguing that Homeland Security officials have treated the migrant crisis more as a security threat than a humanitarian one.

The main questions on the campaign trail will be how each candidate would improve the treatment of migrants in its custody, and whether U.S. laws need to be changed to make such an improvement.

Aid to Central America

Migrants are primarily coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and the U.S. has been sending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to help those countries improve their security, economic and judicial systems to encourage more citizens to stay there.

But Trump cut off $450 million in funding to those countries in March, arguing that their governments were stealing the money and not doing enough to stop their citizens from heading north to the U.S.

Democrats, and some Republicans, say cutting off funding to Central America is counterproductive, since the move will drive those countries into further chaos and force more of its citizens to embark on the dangerous journey north.

The main questions on the campaign will be whether the federal government should restart aid to those Central American countries, and whether U.S. officials should more closely scrutinize how the money is allocated.

Merit-based immigration

The U.S. approves about 1.1 million green cards a year, handing out 63% to foreigners with family connections in the U.S. and about 13% based on their skills and ability to contribute to the economy.

Trump wants to flip that around.

The president has advocated for Canada's "merit-based" immigration system. That idea was cemented in an immigration plan developed by his adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, that would grant most green cards based on a points system that rewards applicants for their education, English proficiency and standing job offers.

Such changes are needed, Trump argues, to limit the family-based migration system that Republicans decry as "chain migration." The system currently allows U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor their children, parents and siblings, but Trump wants to limit that to only spouses and minor children.

Democrats claim such a change would unfairly lock out low-income and low-skilled immigrants, fundamentally altering the nation's history of welcoming the tired, poor, huddled masses that Emma Lazarus wrote about in her poem affixed to the Statute of Liberty. They also accuse the president of hypocrisy, since first lady Melania Trump's parents were recently sworn in as citizens, which may not have been possible without family-based migration.

Candidates on the campaign trail will be expected to lay out their vision for what legal immigration should look like, and whether the U.S. should scrap its family-based immigration system in favor of an economic-based one.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

While the situation along the southern border has received most of the attention, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have dramatically increased arrests of immigrants living and working in the interior of the U.S.

Under Obama, ICE agents were directed to target mostly undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But Trump overturned that restriction, allowing ICE agents to arrest anybody they encounter, no matter their criminal background. That has led to a sharp rise in the number of undocumented immigrants arrested without a criminal record.

ICE agents under Trump have also returned to the massive workplace raids that were used frequently under former President George W. Bush and largely eliminated under Obama. Those raids have mostly targeted workers, not the employers who hire them.

Democrats have decried that enforcement strategy, with some even calling for ICE to be abolished. That movement gained steam during the 2018 election cycle, but most major Democratic presidential candidates are calling for a more scaled-back approach, including reforms to, but not the abolition of, the immigration enforcement agency.

Republicans have largely defended Trump's crackdown, arguing that all undocumented immigrants have broken immigration law and should not be immune from deportation.

The key questions for candidates will be whether they want to completely abolish ICE, reform the agency, return to the Obama-era approach of targeting more undocumented immigrants with criminal records or maintain Trump's hardline approach.

Sanctuary Cities

One of the most controversial developments in recent years is the emergence of so-called "sanctuary cities," a general term used to describe city, county and state governments that do not fully comply with federal immigration efforts.

One of the core disagreements is whether local jails should hold suspects for up to 48 hours solely to give ICE agents time to decide whether they will pick them up for immigration violations.

The Trump administration has tried to crack down on those local governments under the argument that such policies endanger U.S. citizens by allowing dangerous undocumented immigrants to be released into communities. 

The Department of Homeland Security published several reports listing localities that allowed criminals to be released despite ICE requests to hold them — those reports were discontinued after they proved to be riddled with errors. The Department of Justice also tried to withhold federal grant money from local governments it deemed had sanctuary policies, but that move was partially shot down by a federal judge.

Officials in sanctuary cities, mostly Democrats, argue that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that local police cannot, and should not, be enlisted to serve as immigration agents. Doing so, they argue, would drive immigrants to distrust their local police officers and not report crimes they are victims of, or witnesses to.

They also argue that its illegal to hold suspects without proper probable cause, an argument that has been upheld by several courts, but that ICE has tried to eliminate by changing how they make their requests to local police.

The key questions on the trail will be whether sanctuary policies should be embraced or punished.

Read or Share this story: