Resistant to Reform? Improving U.S. Immigration Policy Through Data, Evidence, and Innovation

Introduction

Around the world, migration is on the rise. A record 117 million people have been forcibly displaced globally.¹ Advanced industrialized countries have experienced a “migration boom” in recent decades, and there are now more than 48.7 million foreign-born people living in the United States. As governments grapple with the political, economic, and social challenges of effectively managing migration—and its growing electoral salience around the world—debates over what responses are needed have dominated policy discussions.

U.S. immigration policy is often described as chaotic and resistant to reform. Indeed, the discourse surrounding immigration policy has been characterized by escalating political polarization and increasingly stringent approaches to the influx of migrants across the U.S. southern border. Scapegoating and vilifying migrants has become an influential political strategy, fostering an atmosphere of apprehension and hostility. For the first time in two decades, a majority of Americans want to see immigration to the United States decreased, according to recent Gallup polling.²

Hidden behind this divisive rhetoric—and the sensationalist political and media narratives that shape it—lies a dynamic policy arena filled with new and innovative solutions. These efforts aim to support the success of immigrants in their host communities while helping those communities address labor and demographic challenges. This paper describes several of these initiatives and suggests how they can be subjected to rigorous testing to make meaningful improvements to U.S. immigration policy. Despite substantial evidence pointing to the positive economic and social impacts of migration for sending countries, host communities, and migrants themselves, there is a significant evidence gap on which policies and programs are most effective in optimizing the benefits and mitigating the costs of migration. With the economic contributions of migrants projected to reach $20 trillion by 2050, it is as important as ever to invest in rigorous testing and scaling of the most promising policies, programs, and innovations in ways that have helped transform other policy domains, from economic development to public health. By showing the public that immigration can work, evidence-based solutions can help diffuse the toxic politics surrounding the issue and assure Americans that these policy investments are well spent for the public good.

This paper begins by outlining a range of innovations that rely on data and algorithmic tools to advance refugee resettlement and immigrant placement. Second, it discusses a set of policies and labor market programs designed to deter irregular migration and maximize employment of refugees and other immigrants so they can contribute to economic growth. Third, despite dim prospects for comprehensive immigration reform by Congress, this paper describes several local and state initiatives that await rigorous testing and, if effective, can be scaled to provide bottom-up, rather than top-down, solutions to immigration-related challenges. Finally, it highlights policy areas that remain insufficiently addressed and demand greater evidence and exploration. The paper concludes by outlining an agenda for further testing and innovation. 

Algorithmic Tools to Improve Location Matching

Driving policy innovation in immigration requires piloting and evaluating tools and technologies that can improve immigration policies and processes while equipping policymakers with the data and insights they need to make productive decisions. One promising innovation is the use of algorithmic tools to make the placement and integration of newcomers more efficient, data-driven, and effective. GeoMatch, created by Stanford University’s Immigration Policy Lab (IPL), recommends areas for refugees to resettle based on individuals’ attributes like education, gender, and country of origin. Using historical data on past refugees and their integration outcomes, the algorithm identifies synergies between personal characteristics and locations, develops models to predict how newcomers will fare, and identifies the best match for each incoming refugee. Resettlement tools can be especially impactful because host countries often make their decisions based on arrival time and the availability of local community support, rather than on features that would yield the best outcomes for refugees. According to tests on past data, GeoMatch could increase refugees’ employment rates by 35 percent or more. 

Other promising programs leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies to increase benefits for migrants with little cost to policymakers. The International Rescue Committee has launched a Virtual Resettlement Line to provide an easily accessible and rapidly scalable one-stop resource for Afghans and Ukrainians arriving in the United States through humanitarian parole programs. This can help ensure that incoming refugees and asylum-seekers are provided with streamlined and customized access to the services they need to rebuild their lives in the United States. Similarly, Justicia Lab has built digital and AI tools to expand immigrants’ access to legal services. And Upwardly Global is exploring the use of AI to help refugees and immigrants overcome barriers to employment and effectively match their skills and experience with suitable jobs. Understanding the immediate outcomes of these innovations on service access, job matching, and adjudication results, and their downstream effects on immigrant integration, can guide policymakers and advocates on how to accelerate newcomers’ path to success.

Meanwhile, in Canada, IPL researchers have examined the country’s Express Entry system to explore how algorithmic matching could inform the decisionmaking of economic immigrants on where in a destination country they should settle to maximize their earnings. This could improve distribution of immigrants in Canada. Immigrants tend to cluster in cities like Toronto, which they are more familiar with, instead of opting to go to other places, like rural areas, where their skills are increasingly needed and where they could discover additional opportunities that could enable them to thrive. If immigrants chose to move to these areas, both they and the rural communities could benefit. This research suggests that location-based matching could transform immigration in the United States, both by supplying immigrants with personalized information on what locations offer them the best opportunities and by efficiently distributing asylum-seekers across the country, which could decongest cities that have struggled to provide adequate housing and services to new arrivals.

Sponsorship and Labor Market Programs

In addition to destination choices, research has shown that delays in asylum wait times and employment bans can significantly impact the integration of refugees and other immigrants. In Switzerland, an additional year of waiting for an asylum decision decreased an asylum-seeker’s employment probability by up to 23 percent, regardless of age, gender, and country of origin. These findings are relevant to the United States, where asylum-seekers typically wait six months before they can obtain a work permit. This has strained public services in cities experiencing large migrant influxes, such as New York, where leaders have called for the state to issue its own work permits to expedite the process. Given ongoing labor shortages throughout the United States and clear evidence on how immediate employment reduces pressure on social services while facilitating effective integration, wait times and employment for recent arrivals are key areas for reform.

One of the most significant immigration reforms in recent years has been the expansion of sponsorship programs, in which private citizens take responsibility for resettling and supporting newcomers. Sponsorship pathways such as the Uniting for Ukraine program and humanitarian parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV) have enabled the United States to rapidly welcome more than 330,000 vulnerable migrants (170,000 and 160,000 respectively).

The U.S. State Department, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, has also launched the Welcome Corps, a private refugee sponsorship program. Programs like this one, modeled on similar initiatives in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Spain, can serve two purposes: expanding the ability of host countries to admit and resettle more refugees and other vulnerable migrants, and increasing host community support and demand for immigration.

Yet the impact of the reforms both on these outcomes and on the well-being and integration of those who arrive through them needs to be assessed. While studies of Canada’s private sponsorship model suggest that sponsored refugees integrate more successfully than government-assisted refugees, the research does not account for different refugee selection processes for each intake pathway that may bias these findings. Other research on private sponsorship for Ukrainian refugees in Germany has indicated some positive integration outcomes for this kind of program, with privately sponsored refugees experiencing greater gains in integration than other refugees.

The effectiveness of these models therefore warrants further study. On one hand, sponsorship could produce better integration outcomes by giving refugees the full attention of native citizens who can leverage their networks to provide jobs and other kinds of support. On the other hand, these programs could hinder integration by making refugees reliant on improperly vetted, inexperienced volunteers without the adequate resources to assist them. Some groups may benefit from these models more than others, but more research needs to be done. Research suggests that integration is a two-way process, including both immigrants and host communities; consequently, testing should study the effects of these programs on sponsors and host communities more broadly. This evidence can guide investments and strategies to increase the capacity of communities to welcome refugees and other immigrants while building grassroots demand for these kinds of programs.

Labor Pathways

The debate over immigration policy often focuses on enforcement and deterrence measures. Yet there is growing recognition of the importance of providing legal avenues to manage migration flows, discourage irregular migration, and address labor market needs, particularly as worker shortages and population decline in advanced industrialized countries increase labor market demand for immigrants. For example, recent employment and skills-based mobility projects promoted by the European Union and other advanced economies have connected workers from low- and middle-income countries with hard-to-fill jobs abroad. In North and South America, governments have expanded circular mobility pathways, including seasonal and temporary worker programs.

In 2023, the U.S. State Department created Safe Mobility Offices: regional processing centers throughout Latin America (Colombia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Ecuador) that screen potential immigrants, refugees, or temporary workers. Besides identifying immigrants for expedited resettlement to the United States, Canada, and Spain, the centers are also intended to deter irregular migration. The U.S. Agency for International Development and other development agencies have also played a role in providing access to labor pathways via training, outreach, and information. This has helped bolster circular migration programs within Latin America and in Canada, Spain, and the United States. Beyond these programs, the United States has issued an additional 65,000 H-2B temporary work visas in industries that rely on seasonal workers, such as landscaping and tourism. In general, these initiatives reflect a growing focus by the U.S. government and other actors on expanding labor pathways. Yet some of these programs have fallen short of expectations, facilitating the movement of only small numbers of workers, in part because of limited funding and lack of private-sector engagement. More evidence is needed, then, on how to remove these barriers and the subsequent impact of these programs on both short-term and longer-term migration patterns.

Additional promising innovations are on the table. The “bridge visa” would allow American companies to sponsor foreign workers and provide a more permanent path to residency in the United States after six years. Unlike other visas, the bridge visa would be available to workers of different skill levels and could be used for both circular migration and permanent residency. Other visas, specifically for international students, could facilitate permanent residency after graduation, benefiting students who want to work in the United States and industries hoping to hire them. Furthermore, a “startup visa” would provide an avenue for foreign entrepreneurs—who are overrepresented among successful startup founders—to establish businesses in the United States, potentially creating around 1.6 million jobs within ten years.

Another innovative experiment that could both expand labor pathways and foster integration is tying work permits to specific locations. Though immigration policy is a national issue, its costs and benefits are not equally distributed nationwide, with major metropolitan areas and coastal states having significantly larger immigrant populations. To ensure more equitable distribution, Congress could consider “place-based” visas, such as the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program proposed by Representative John Curtis (R-UT) and the Heartland Visa proposal by the Economic Innovation Group. These programs would give states and cities the authority and opportunity to design their own visa programs and attract immigrants according to the needs of local industries, employers, and workers. If they get sufficient buy-in from regulators, the private sector, and communities in need of labor, these proposals should be tested and evaluated to help identify best practices and inform the development of more effective and inclusive policies. Coupled with some of the technological tools highlighted above, such place-based initiatives could ensure the best matches between newcomers and host communities.

Innovations that improve the rights of workers and pathways for legal work authorization will also be useful for testing the effectiveness of labor migration programs. Scholars have argued that, in order to achieve immigration reform, policymakers must strengthen the enforcement of labor standards so that migrant workers are not underpaid or exploited. Migrant workers are especially vulnerable to violations of labor standards, such as extended hours without pay, safety violations, and other dangers at the workplace. Consequently, as legal pathways open, it will be crucial to conduct comprehensive analyses on whether these enforcement mechanisms work and what their consequences are for immigrants and workplace integration. As with place-based initiatives, these programs have fallen short of expectations. More research is needed on the economic and social impacts of expanding legal pathways for migration to help policymakers design more effective immigration policies that receive broad support from the private sector, and to demonstrate the returns to the private sector for investing in these pathway programs.

In sum, while there has been some qualitative research on labor programs, more systematic and rigorous research on how these programs work for the parties involved and how migrants who come through these channels benefit and integrate compared to other migration channels will be crucial for building the evidence base around labor migration programs.

Local and State Initiatives

Given the difficulty in changing federal rules and the low likelihood of immigration reform in Congress, localities must serve as laboratories for generating evidence and testing new approaches. Cities are the most common sites for innovations; consequently, municipal governments and local communities can make meaningful reforms in 1) facilitating the integration of people already in the United States, 2) addressing public concerns and stereotypes of immigrants to make communities more welcoming, and 3) demonstrating that extending benefits to immigrant populations helps both migrants and host communities. A prime example is Philadelphia, a diverse city with a growing immigrant population that has recently introduced policies like limiting federal immigration detainers and requiring language access services for municipal agencies (a policy that cities like New York City and Washington, DC, have had for years). The city government has also cracked down on immigration services fraud, which can permanently damage newcomers’ applications for asylum or residency. The intended and unintended consequences of these policies, and how they may help facilitate immigrant integration, need to be assessed, shared, and promoted through coalitions such as the Mayors Migration Council to inform other municipal leaders looking to enact effective policies for newcomers.

States also serve as critical laboratories for immigration reform. One example is the extension of driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. An IPL-led study of California’s Assembly Bill 60, which expanded access to driver’s licenses for the undocumented, showed that it increased employed undocumented workers’ income and hours worked. There were also benefits for the broader population: the expansion of licenses reduced hit and run accidents by 10 percent in the first year and did not increase traffic deaths, ultimately saving California drivers about $3.5 million in out of pocket expenses. This research was cited in campaigns to expand access to licenses in New York (Green Light NYC) and New Jersey (Let’s Drive NJ). These policies serve as an example of evidence-based reforms that can both help facilitate integration and yield economic and social benefits for host communities.

In summary, new innovations and reforms have the potential to affect different parts of the immigration policy cycle. Many of them need to be rigorously evaluated and scaled, and for some proposals, localities can serve as laboratories for greater testing. Other policies, such as the expansion of labor pathways and sponsorship, have been rolled out with too much fanfare and promise but require additional testing. With more evidence, these innovations can help us identify what improves outcomes for migrants and non-migrants alike—and what does not.

New Challenges

In addition to generating evidence on the impact of recent reforms, innovations, and proposed policy changes, improving immigration policy requires filling knowledge gaps in asylum processing and adjudication, integration, and housing. In this section, we outline these gaps and identify potential solutions that have yet to be fully implemented.

Asylum Processing

While legal representation is widely recognized as a crucial factor in determining the outcome of asylum cases, there is limited empirical evidence on the comparative effectiveness of different types of legal services. For some asylum cases, applicants have been able to enlist non-lawyers who are specifically trained to assist with filing paperwork and provide representation at court hearings. How effective are alternative legal service providers in immigration adjudication, compared to traditional lawyers? This is important to understand as more states and cities are creating recruitment, training, and uptake programs for non-lawyer accredited representatives, taking advantage of the Justice Department’s Recognition and Accreditation Program. Rigorous studies of short-term outcomes (adjudication results) and long-term outcomes (integration) of those represented by lawyers versus non-lawyer representatives could help inform policies aimed at expanding access to legal representation for asylum seekers and improving the efficiency and fairness of the asylum adjudication process.

Another related area in need of further investigation is the backlog of asylum applications and potential processes for addressing it. Currently, U.S. immigration courts face nearly 2 million pending cases, with around 650 judges sometimes requiring years to render a decision. Despite efforts to increase the number of asylum officers and immigration judges, backlogs continue to plague the asylum system, resulting in lengthy delays and uncertainty for asylum seekers. Research on innovative approaches to streamlining adjudication processes or implementing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms could help inform more efficient and timely asylum processing procedures. Such measures, however, would require action by Congress, which has in recent years failed to address any significant immigration policy issues.

Proposals that focus on improving the efficiency and performance of immigration courts include increasing access to legal representation to improve due process, fair outcomes, and courtroom efficiency. Additionally, temporarily implementing a “last in, first decided” approach for scheduling new cases, which the Migration Policy Institute has determined to be effective in the past, “could bring processing times on new cases down to months, rather than years.” However, “because this disadvantages cases that have already been waiting for a long time, it should be treated as a temporary, emergency measure alongside policy and procedural reforms that protect fairness and promote efficiency more broadly.” Research on the effectiveness of such emergency measures—including on how and when resources can be used for older cases—is essential for figuring out how to best shrink the growth and size of the backlog.

Integration

Different policies affect integration in several ways, facilitating or hindering immigrants’ ability to build successful, fulfilling lives in their new communities. For instance, policies can increase resentment or change immigrants’ willingness to engage with the host society. In turn, policies can affect the behavior of host communities, in response either to the policy change or, indirectly, to shifts in behavior among immigrant communities. Yet considerable gaps in our understanding of integration persist, especially regarding which policies work and why. Design-based studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of laws and programs aimed at promoting or facilitating integration within host communities.

Where opportunities for employment and immigrant integration exist, another challenge is the division between undocumented immigrants and newcomers who may face different barriers to integration. While newcomers may have access to support services and resources, undocumented immigrants often live in the shadows, facing limited opportunities for integration and social inclusion. Research on the experiences and needs of undocumented immigrants could help inform policies aimed at promoting inclusive integration strategies that address the needs of all immigrant populations.

Though the “welfare magnet” hypothesis suggests that immigrants tend to move to areas with generous welfare benefits—prompting concerns that expanding such benefits might increase irregular migration—there is little evidence to support this assumption. Rather, research from IPL has found that extending services to undocumented immigrants, including driver’s licenses (as described earlier) and deportation protections under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, benefits not only immigrants, but also the communities in which they live, by drawing immigrants out of the shadows and equipping them with the tools and resources to succeed and contribute to society. A focus on extending protections and assistance to migrants who are already living in the United States has been one of the priority approaches taken by U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration, including a recent action to protect an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens from deportation.

Lastly, more research is needed to better grasp which policies affect the behavior and attitudes of host communities toward immigrants, either directly or indirectly, and why. Previous studies have shown that resistance to immigration is driven more by concerns over its cultural impacts than its economic consequences. Yet little is known about the circumstances in which inclusive policies trigger positive and welcoming responses among native populations and, conversely, which conditions trigger a backlash. This is particularly important when designing policies focused on building welcoming local constituencies and positive host-immigrant interactions.

Welcoming America, an organization dedicated to fostering inclusive communities, offers a certification program that encourages municipalities to adopt policies and practices that make them more welcoming to immigrants and refugees. Several cities and towns across the United States have launched various initiatives under this framework, such as community outreach programs, language access services, and workforce integration efforts. For instance, initiatives in places like Dayton, OH, and Lancaster, PA, have aimed to integrate immigrants more fully into the social and economic fabric of the community.

The expansion of these efforts provides a unique opportunity to build the evidence base around effective integration programs and develop a nuanced understanding of which initiatives have successfully promoted integration and inclusion and which have encountered resistance or backlash from local populations. Systematic assessments are needed to evaluate the impact of these efforts and to refine strategies for building more welcoming communities. Comprehensive evaluations could help identify best practices and mitigate potential negative reactions, ensuring that efforts to create inclusive environments are both effective and sustainable.

Housing and Other Mutually Beneficial Policies

If managed well, studies show that there are mutual benefits of migration for migrants, their sending countries, and their hosting communities. For migrants, benefits include improved standards of living, the acquisition of new skill sets, and upward mobility. For host communities, immigrants can bring innovation, cultural diversity, and alleviated demographic pressures. For sending countries, emigrants can foster economic development through business investment, remittances, and knowledge transfers. Despite the evidence, however, there is a need for more research on mutually beneficial policies and services that leverage these potential benefits and support both migrants and host communities.

For example, research on housing policies that address the needs of both migrant and non-migrant populations could help inform efforts to promote social cohesion and reduce inequalities. This is particularly urgent amid a global housing crisis, where 1.6 billion people—or one-fifth of the global population—lack adequate housing and basic services. This affects both high- and low-income countries, with housing prices outpacing wages in most countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the last decade. In the United States, this issue has been further compounded by elevated interest rates, increased costs for builders, and decreased construction activity since the 2007–2009 recession.

In many U.S. cities, including New York City, a surge in border arrivals, compounded by long-standing housing shortages, has strained housing markets and exacerbated homelessness. New York City’s median rents reached a record high of $3,795 in mid-2023, while the vacancy rate plummeted to 1.4 percent, the lowest it had been in decades. The number of individuals in homeless shelters had also nearly doubled since spring 2022, largely because the city had received over 175,000 asylum seekers and migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border. To alleviate pressure on the shelter system, the city announced limits on shelter stays for newly arrived migrants and offered free one-way tickets to other destinations. This housing challenge has also hampered the Biden administration’s efforts to increase refugee admissions through the formal U.S. resettlement system, as partner organizations struggle to expand capacity and provide adequate housing in the face of funding constraints and landlord refusal. More research is needed to test and evaluate policies that aim to expand housing for both immigrants and host country citizens to determine whether such approaches can help communities absorb more migrants while alleviating hostility and perceived competition. Understanding whether and how these policies can offer mutual benefits or if they inadvertently trigger (real or perceived) zero-sum competition is crucial for developing sustainable solutions.

Conclusion: A Research and Innovation Agenda

This paper has demonstrated that the immigration policy space is more innovative, productive, and amenable to meaningful reform than popular political and journalistic accounts suggest. While there has been some progress in testing the effectiveness of different policies and programs, and in developing innovative solutions, more work is needed to evaluate these initiatives and identify which policies work to harness the benefits of migration for migrants and their host communities. Addressing the complexities of immigration requires a concerted effort to develop a robust evidence base and foster a culture of innovation. As such, collaboration between policymakers, practitioners, policy analysts, and academic researchers is critical for advancing evidence-based solutions. Examples of recent and ongoing research and evaluation efforts include:

1. Location-based, algorithmic matching for new refugees and immigrants
2. Extension of services (such as driver’s licenses) to undocumented immigrants
3. Analysis of the effects of asylum wait times
4. Private and community sponsorship initiatives
5. Enforcement of violations of labor standards 

There are also existing research gaps that can be addressed by bringing policymakers and researchers together for design and evaluation. The needed research would test the impact of:

1. Alternative legal service providers, such as non-lawyer representatives
2. Process- and procedure-based solutions to address the asylum application backlog and improve the efficacy and operations of immigration courts 
3. Expansion of various labor migration pathways and mobility programs and the role of the private sector
4. Policies affecting integration outcomes, such as expanding services for undocumented immigrants and protections from deportations
5. Policies aimed at providing mutual benefits for migrants and host communities

Investing in collaborative rigorous evidence would help shift the discourse from purely anecdotal narratives to a foundation with more solid data. By building the evidence base and identifying innovative solutions, scholars and policymakers can work toward more effective migration policies that promote social inclusion and economic improvement for migrants, host communities, and countries of origin alike.

Notes

¹ As of the end of 2023.

² This includes residents of more progressive and immigration-friendly states, such as California, where the forthcoming 2024 Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey found that a plurality of respondents wanted immigration to decrease (35 percent) while 28 percent believed it should stay at the present level and 19 percent believed it should increase.