Other than “I’m asking for your vote,” no statement by a politician has been more ubiquitous in recent years than, “I’m against illegal immigration, but I’m all for legal immigration.” It’s an immigration policy slogan that many members of Congress, along with state and local officials, concocted after searching for a soundbite that they hoped would not only appeal (more or less) to everyone, but would simultaneously hide ulterior motives.
The phrase has offered devious cover for both parties—though far more for Democrats—over many years as America’s border crisis escalated. By claiming they opposed illegal immigration, Democrats hoped to camouflage their plan to dramatically increase legal immigration for the purpose of altering the electorate to their advantage. The phrase also helped them tee up their two logic-twisting arguments: “If we could make it easier and faster for virtually everyone to legally immigrate to the U.S., we wouldn’t have illegal immigration” and “if we amnesty 18.6 million illegal aliens, then they’re legal and that’s what we all agree is good, right?”
Wrong.
Unfortunately, the phrase has also been employed by many Republicans. Emphasizing that they supported legal immigration kept their puppet masters at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce happy and didn’t interfere with the lobby group’s quest for massive levels of legal immigration, amnesty, and guest workers to fuel its cheap labor agenda. Constituents were assured, “Yes, but remember, I oppose illegal immigration, so all is fine.”
“Illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good” also offered politicians the utility of a Swiss Army knife. Depending on the prevailing attitudes of constituents at town hall meetings, either point could be handily deployed for custom tailored appeal.
Endorsing legal immigration was all that was necessary—never mind the messy business of rationalizing just how much of it is actually sustainable, or revealing that since 1965, the preponderance of legal immigration to the United States has been driven by chain migration. Admitting millions of people without regard to their ability or likelihood to contribute to the economic and social well-being of the nation may be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is good policy.
Had Madison Avenue created the “illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good” phrase, they’d be thrilled with its impact on driving public opinion. Gallup Polling trends have shown an increase in the number of Americans who think immigration is a “good thing.”
Except mass legal immigration isn’t necessarily a “good thing” given its adverse impact on American wages, education, healthcare, housing, the solvency of the nation’s social services safety net, and national security and public safety. Thus, the days of fence straddling with an inane, overly-simplified phrase needs to end, not only because doing so mindlessly rationalizes large-scale legal immigration by glossing over the complex problems it poses, but also because some Americans—especially GOP voters—are wising up to the waffling.
Margaret Thatcher could have told the political wordsmiths as much: “It is not the business of politicians to please everyone.”
Thankfully, simply robotically parroting “Illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good” may be on the way out, at least for Republicans.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) recently introduced the Pausing on Admissions Until Security Ensured (PAUSE) Act of 2025, which would freeze all immigration to the U.S. until multiple reforms are put in place. Among other items, these include reversing or ending birthright citizenship, chain migration, and the Diversity Visa Program, ensuring foreign labor does not displace American workers, and ensuring that public social services are reserved for citizens only.
As Rep. Roy explains:
The problem isn’t just illegal immigration; it’s also legal immigration. American families are being gouged by insurance companies, while aliens are receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. The prospects of marriage, parenthood, and homeownership are becoming increasingly distant for Americans, all while foreign nationals are bringing multiple generations of families through chain migration.
And while securing the border and deporting illegal aliens remains a top priority for President Trump, legal immigration is now getting his renewed attention. In response to the recent shooting of two National Guard members by an Afghan national, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, “Even as we have progressed technologically, Immigration Policy has eroded those gains and living conditions for many.
Trump, Roy, and others understand that securing the border, enforcing laws, and removing those who violate them was never a quid pro quo Americans accepted in exchange for a continuation of historically high levels of legal immigration that hinder the nation’s national interest.
Politicians love swishy slogans so it’s naïve to assume they’ll ever entirely abandon their time-tested “Illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good” crutch. Thus, for those who feel compelled to keep using it but who are otherwise genuinely committed to the nation’s well-being, a slightly modified version is recommended: “Illegal immigration bad, limited legal immigration good, but only to the extent that standards are in place to ensure that those coming in will protect and enhance our nation’s interest and embrace American values.”
Sure, it’s not as pithy. On the other hand, Americans are long overdue for less equivocation and need more honesty and sound reasons from their public officials as to why surging levels of immigration persist.
Most importantly, they deserve relief from it.
Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington, D.C.
