Policy Lab

Run on 9 March 2026

Immigration Reform in the US

A comprehensive reform replacing executive-memo governance with durable statutory standards for enforcement, asylum adjudication, employer accountability, legal channels, and status settlement for long-settled residents.

Full document →

The final result

Read the article →

This debate took roughly 75 minutes to run. We created AI agents for each major political constituency, surfaced their grievances, designed reform proposals, scored each other's reactions, and eventually produced a full legislative bill proposal.

If you just want the final result, the article explains what the bill would change and how it affects the different groups involved. Otherwise, keep reading below to follow the full deliberation.

Read the Article

or keep reading to discover the process behind it

Constituencies

Full map →

We began by identifying the main political constituencies involved in this debate.

Progressive DemocratsModerate DemocratsModerate RepublicansConservative Republicans

Grievances

Full reports →

We then mapped what each group wants, in their own voice.

Progressive Democrats

1Our enforcement system is built around punishment, not public safety
2We keep millions of people in permanent legal limbo instead of creating a real path to status
3We have abandoned Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status holders, and mixed-status families to recurring uncertainty

Moderate Democrats

1The system looks disordered, and that destroys public trust in immigration itself
2Legal immigration is so slow and arbitrary that it pushes people into the wrong channels
3We have left long-settled undocumented families in permanent limbo

Moderate Republicans

1The government has not maintained credible control of the border
2The asylum system is being used as a back door for people who are really seeking work or long-term residence
3Legal immigration is too disorganized, too slow, and too disconnected from national priorities

Conservative Republicans

1The government no longer demonstrates basic control over the border
2The asylum system is being used as a loophole for migration, not as a narrow protection process
3Interior enforcement is too weak to matter once someone gets inside

Policy Areas

Full analysis →

Finally, we grouped these grievances into 6 negotiable policy areas.

01Legal Channels and Family Reunification
02Asylum and Immigration Adjudication
03Status Settlement and Labor Market Rules
04Statutory Governance and Durable Rules
05Proportional Enforcement and Public Safety
06Local Absorption and Civic Integration Capacity

Alignment

Full analysis →

We then analyzed where the constituencies converge, where they clash, and what trade-offs might hold a coalition together.

For each of the 6 policy areas, we ran a reform loop: one agent proposed changes, another scored how each group would react, and the cycle repeated until the scores cleared the bar or no more gains were possible.

The current asylum and removal system runs through border screening, asylum officers inside U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and immigration judges in an executive-branch court system inside the Department of Justice. People seeking protection may be detained or released under supervision while their cases proceed, and access at ports of entry, screening rules, and case priorities can shift significantly between administrations. In practice, this policy area combines humanitarian protection, civil detention, and removal adjudication in one overloaded process, which leaves many cases pending for long periods and makes fairness, speed, and credibility central points of conflict.

These were the proposed changes:

·Faster first decisions with a protected safety valve
·Legal representation before the first interview for those who need it most
·Real notice, not just paper notice
·Supervision matched to actual risk, not administrative convenience
·Public tracking of whether denied cases actually lead to removal
·A temporary unit to clear the existing backlog
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: The funded counsel requirement before the first interview is the change that matters most to Progressive Democrats, because poor applicants currently lose asylum claims they could win simply because they cannot navigate a legally complex process alone on a compressed timeline. A lawyer entering the case 21 days before the first interview is enough time to spot vulnerability markers, gather supporting documents, and flag cases that belong in the protected lane.

Moderate Democrats: Moderate Democrats get a system they can defend as orderly and humane rather than improvised and arbitrary. The automatic pause on accelerated-lane intake when judge capacity fails (two consecutive months of unfilled review slots or a review calendar backed up more than 30 days) turns the speed promise from a good-faith aspiration into a legal stop. The proposal does not just ask agencies to try harder; it legally prevents the fast lane from running when the resources to make it fair are not in place.

Moderate Republicans: The execution ladder with a public exception ledger, enumerated statutory blocking categories, and mandatory field-office rankings gives Moderate Republicans a credible claim that this proposal is actually serious about following through on denials. Under the current system, a denied claim often sits in an enforcement queue with no visible timetable and no public accounting of why removal has not happened. Under this proposal, a case that is not resolved within 30 days is on a public ledger with a specific reason.

Conservative Republicans: The tightened eligibility screen for the accelerated lane (requiring completed security screening, verified identity through documents or biometric match, and a record that does not require substantial external evidence-gathering) means the fast lane is visibly reserved for cases the government has already partially vetted rather than functioning as a general intake channel. Conservative Republicans believe the current system lets too many weak claims serve as long-stay pathways, and a narrower, more legible fast lane addresses that specific concern.

The current legal immigration system runs through family and employment categories set in federal law, with applications processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the State Department, and consulates abroad. Some close relatives of U.S. citizens can immigrate outside the main annual caps, but many other family and employment applicants enter quota-bound lines with per-country limits, meaning limits on how many visas can go to people from any one country each year, and those waits can stretch for years. In practice, this policy area is defined by long backlogs, heavy paperwork, and hard-to-predict processing, so lawful entry often feels like a maze rather than a clear alternative to other immigration pathways.

These were the proposed changes:

·Restoring lost visa numbers and stopping future losses
·Annual independent verification that the queue is being run honestly
·A legal bridge for families waiting years in the queue
·Auditable support for families with limited English or internet access
·Hard processing deadlines, with consequences that escalate
·Counting workers, not whole families, against the worker cap
·Anti-gaming rules for large employers, with public accountability
·A periodic labor-market review that must produce a vote
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: Approved spouses and minor children of green-card holders can get a temporary legal status with work authorization while they wait for a visa number, through the revived V nonimmigrant status, instead of spending years abroad or in uncertain status. Progressive Democrats support this because long separations harm the children most, and the in-country option means a green-card holder does not have to choose between keeping the family together and following legal process.

Moderate Democrats: The annual independent queue audit with an automatic suspension trigger takes agency self-certification off the table. Moderate Democrats can now defend the legal-channel repair as independently verified rather than as another government promise, which matters because credibility with their own base on immigration process has been a recurring challenge.

Moderate Republicans: The employer beneficial-ownership disclosure and the public quarterly report make employer gaming politically expensive, not just administratively penalized. Moderate Republicans who want a legal front door that is not captured by large employer pipelines now have a public record to point to when a mismatch between disclosures and filing behavior shows up.

Conservative Republicans: The annual independent queue audit with automatic suspension of new recapture forecasting when a material error is found gives the procedural-fairness slice of this constituency something they have not had before: a binding external check on whether the legal line is actually being run in the order it was supposed to be, not a government scorecard that agencies can design to look good.

Under the current system, reception and integration are fragmented across federal, state, local, nonprofit, and school-based programs rather than organized through one durable national framework. Communities absorbing new arrivals often have to improvise around shelter demand, school enrollment, hospital and clinic pressure, housing scarcity, and language access, while support for English instruction, workforce placement, and naturalization help varies sharply by place. In practice, this policy area operates as a patchwork: some jurisdictions build strong incorporation pipelines, while others experience immigration mainly as an unmanaged capacity shock with no clear formula for federal backup.

These were the proposed changes:

·Automatic federal aid to strained communities
·Backstop funding for places with too few providers
·Hard cap on federal placements into overloaded jurisdictions, with escalating penalties for repeat violations
·Public plain-language dashboard showing whether the system is actually working
·Corrective plans that name real receiving communities
·Civic integration support with participation expectations, but benefit loss as a last resort
·Independent review of contested integration failures
·Provider accountability for cherry-picking easy participants
·Annual civil-rights audit of capacity classifications
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: The independent review panel means the grantee that issued a sanction no longer controls the appeal. For Progressive Democrats, who believe provider discretion and fear of backlash drive unfair compliance decisions against marginalized participants, this is a structural protection: an independent contractor makes the call, in writing, within 45 days.

Moderate Democrats: Strained communities that have been absorbing immigrants without adequate federal support now receive automatic quarterly payments calculated from a statutory formula rather than waiting for a negotiated reimbursement. Local officials, school districts, and hospital systems in high-receiving areas finally have a predictable funding stream rather than an ad hoc one.

Moderate Republicans: The ratchet penalty for repeated inflow-ceiling violations gives this constituency the visible escalation story it has lacked. A first breach tightens the ceiling. A second consecutive breach tightens it further and activates a transport freeze. The escalation is automatic rather than discretionary.

Conservative Republicans: The ratchet penalty and the plain-language net inflow dashboard represent the most visible enforcement improvement this policy area has delivered. Repeated violations cost more each time, and the results are published in plain language so voters can see whether the system is working.

The current enforcement system combines a large border security apparatus with interior enforcement run primarily through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with a civil detention system holding tens of thousands of people at any given time. Visa overstay tracking remains inconsistent, removal priorities shift between administrations, and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities varies widely across jurisdictions. Border crossings and interior enforcement actions have both become flashpoints in a broader argument about whether the government is capable of maintaining predictable, rule-based control while also treating people in custody with basic decency.

These were the proposed changes:

·Verified case records before enforcement clocks start
·Guaranteed counsel that has to be available on time
·Fast action on executable final orders, with penalties for offices that miss deadlines
·Release stays the default, but repeated confirmed evasion can trigger custody after a written review
·Detention contractors face automatic financial penalties for serious failures
·Employer and smuggling enforcement moves upstream instead of centering worker arrests
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: A contestable case record means DHS cannot count stale-address notice as real contact, which matters to this group because they believe today's system sweeps people into detention or removal through bureaucratic error and racialized overreach.

Moderate Democrats: Verified case records and challenge forms replace paper-only notice, which gives this group a concrete answer to the complaint that current enforcement punishes low-risk families through avoidable record mistakes rather than fair process.

Moderate Republicans: Final-order cases now have enforceable action deadlines, and offices that miss them repeatedly face mandatory headquarters review and possible funding freezes, which matters because this group thinks the current system announces consequences but too often fails to carry them out.

Conservative Republicans: Monthly verified metrics, faster action on executable final orders, and mandatory headquarters review for offices that miss deadlines give this group more visible evidence that the government is acting, which matters because they see the status quo as operational abandonment.

In this policy area, the United States relies on a patchwork of temporary protections, limited work authorization categories, employer paperwork rules, and uneven worksite enforcement rather than a clear long-term settlement for people living here without stable status. Employers are formally required to verify work eligibility through the I-9 process, a federal form used to check identity and work authorization, but enforcement is inconsistent enough that many constituencies see the labor market as still rewarding status vulnerability. The result is a system where many long-settled residents can work and build families but remain legally insecure, while the rules meant to deter unlawful hiring operate unevenly across sectors and administrations.

These were the proposed changes:

·Legal status for long-settled undocumented residents
·Mandatory employer verification, with teeth for the entire hiring chain
·Worker protection before retaliation can happen
·A closed window on new unauthorized hiring
·Funded enforcement with a public enforcement-first scorecard
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: Long-settled undocumented residents who have been building lives in the United States for years, often raising U.S.-born children, can now apply for a path to a green card instead of remaining deportable indefinitely. Progressive Democrats support this because permanent legal vulnerability is used by bad employers to suppress wages and prevent workers from reporting unsafe conditions, and no enforcement fix works if workers cannot safely come forward.

Moderate Democrats: The proposal gives this constituency something they have wanted for years: a settlement deal that is real, time-limited, and accompanied by enforcement that is actually funded. Application fees, verification fees, and penalties go into a dedicated account that cannot be raided by future budget fights, and a fee-adjustment mechanism kicks in automatically if the account falls short.

Moderate Republicans: The employer-sanction architecture is now the most concrete in any recent immigration proposal: mandatory records across the full hiring chain, automatic audit-tier escalation after recordkeeping failures, hard deadlines for debarment review with written decisions and a near-term consequence for officials who miss the clock. Moderate Republicans who want illegal hiring punished, not just discouraged on paper, have more to work with here than in any prior version of this type of bill.

Conservative Republicans: The employer sanctions are more visible and more automatic than any previous version: automatic audit escalation, hard debarment deadlines with published outcomes, and a quarterly scorecard that leads with enforcement results before any settlement data. Conservative Republicans who focus on punishing employers who profit from illegal hiring can point to concrete mechanisms.

The current system relies heavily on executive tools and litigation instead of recent statute. Humanitarian parole, a temporary permission to enter or remain for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, has been used at meaningful scale beyond its original narrow design, while Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) remains an executive policy under litigation and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) still depends on country-by-country executive designations rather than permanent law [CRS, 2025; USCIS, 2025]. Federal cooperation with states and localities also varies sharply by jurisdiction, so families, employers, and local governments often plan around court rulings, agency memoranda, and local policy choices rather than one durable national framework [CRS, 2024].

These were the proposed changes:

·A statutory path to permanent residence for Dreamers, long-term TPS holders, and some mixed-status families
·A fee waiver and a funded backstop so the application right is actually usable
·A simplified-proof safety valve when federal databases fail
·Hard limits on emergency humanitarian protections, with a defined off-ramp
·A grant-conditioned rule for when local jails must cooperate with immigration
·Automatic institutional penalties when federal data quality fails
·A quarterly public scorecard and annual audited reporting
→For the full details, see the full debate.

By group

Progressive Democrats: Dreamers and long-term TPS holders, who have often spent most or all of their lives in the United States, move from depending on litigation-threatened executive programs to having a congressionally enacted status that a future administration cannot simply revoke by memo. Progressive Democrats support this because executive stopgaps are intentionally temporary and courts have repeatedly shown they can freeze them.

Moderate Democrats: The implementation account with a mandatory appropriations backstop answers the fear that a well-designed statute could collapse in year two if USCIS runs out of money and cannot process applications. The backstop is capped, predictable, and not dependent on fee revenue alone.

Moderate Republicans: The quarterly scorecard is the change that matters most for this constituency's core concern: predictable, visible, and auditable follow-through. It now publishes wrongful certifications by field office, pickup completion rates, supervised-departure queue totals by country of origin, and status-title fairness data (how many approvals went to applicants with prior approved visa petitions versus others), on a quarterly cycle rather than annually.

Conservative Republicans: The quarterly scorecard with enforcement-first metrics, the felony definitional floor, the pre-confirmation portal check, and the field-office presumptive invalidity rule together give the enforcement-visibility slice of this constituency more operational accountability than any prior version of this type of bill has offered.

Executive Summary

Full debate →

Across all 6 policy areas, average constituency approval rose from 21% to 73% and satisfaction from 18% to 66%.

The full debate page has the per-policy-area executive summaries and the complete round-by-round record.

Bill

Full bill →

An independent legislator agent implemented the outcomes of the debate in a 6-title, 0-section bill proposal, with some highlights:

·Enforcement that can be verified: Field offices must complete final removal actions within 14 days of verified notice, publish monthly scorecards showing each result and each missed deadline, and enter mandatory headquarters review when they fail. Enforcement becomes a published performance record, not a promise.
·A one-time settlement for long-settled residents: People continuously present since January 1, 2021 enter a Registered Provisional Status program and convert to permanent legal residence after year 7 if they remain compliant. The filing window closes permanently. Future unauthorized entry does not benefit from this provision.
·Legal channels that function: Visa recapture clears the backlog of numbers Congress authorized but the government failed to use. Processing deadlines are enforceable with automatic fee reallocation when agencies miss them. Family members waiting abroad receive bridge status with work authorization while their cases proceed.
·and more in the full bill

Constituency Reviews

Full reviews →

Each constituency reviewed the final bill and assessed how it compares to the status quo.

Progressive Democrats: got the biggest gains on legal status and due process. The bill gives long-settled undocumented residents a one-time path to permanent residence, writes Dreamer and long-term TPS protections into statute, keeps ports open for asylum filing, expands guaranteed counsel for key vulnerable groups, penalizes abusive detention contractors, and gives workers temporary protection when they report labor violations.

Moderate Democrats: got the ordered system they had been asking for. The bill imposes deadlines on asylum, visa processing, and enforcement, publishes office-by-office scorecards, recaptures unused visas, gives mixed-status families and long-settled residents a durable legal route, and adds automatic aid for communities under pressure.

Moderate Republicans: got a package built around measurable control. The bill makes enforcement priorities statutory, requires verified case records, phases in E-Verify, targets repeat employer violators, speeds asylum decisions, limits emergency executive workarounds, and gives local governments automatic support and placement protections when capacity is stretched.

Conservative Republicans: got the parts of the bill that make enforcement harder to evade and executive discretion harder to stretch. They secured nationwide work checks for new hires, public deadlines and audits for field offices, a permanently closed legalization window, stricter time limits on parole-style emergency programs, and stronger protections for over-capacity communities.

Process Audit

Full audit →

Finally, an independent auditor agent reviewed the full deliberation process, flagged structural risks, and assessed whether the outcomes hold up to scrutiny.

Article

Read the article →

A plain-language explanation of the final bill, written for a general audience with no knowledge of the policy area or deliberation process.

Immigration Reform in the US

Phase 1: Preparation

Phase 2: Iteration

Asylum And Immigration Adjudication

Legal Channels And Family Reunification

Local Absorption And Civic Integration Capacity

Proportional Enforcement And Public Safety

Status Settlement And Labor Market Rules

Statutory Governance And Durable Rules

Phase 3: Final

Phase 4: Publication