Kenneth Roth Proposes Immigration Statute of Limitations as Part of Grand Bargain
Immigration remains one of the most polarising and contentious issues confronting the United States, mirroring similar debates in nations across the globe. The recent killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE agent has thrust the topic back into the harsh glare of public scrutiny, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reform.
The Current Crisis and Political Deadlock
With a critical 30 January deadline looming to renew funding for the Department of Homeland Security, Democrats are now pushing for stricter limits on ICE, risking another government shutdown. Against this backdrop of political brinkmanship, the question arises: could this moment finally yield the long-sought bipartisan consensus on immigration?
Kenneth Roth, a staunch advocate for immigration whose own family history is steeped in the immigrant experience, acknowledges the profound flaws in the current framework. He notes that until recently, migrants predominantly arrived at formal US-Mexican border crossings to lawfully seek asylum, rather than attempting clandestine entry.
"They proceeded entirely lawfully, but because their numbers overwhelmed the asylum system, it could take years for a claim to be considered," Roth observes. This bureaucratic backlog effectively permitted long-term residence before any official ruling, fostering a widespread perception that the asylum process was fundamentally broken.
Contrasting Presidential Approaches
The Biden administration attempted to address this crisis by upholding the theoretical right to seek asylum while imposing stringent restrictions, including forcing many migrants to wait in Mexico where they faced significant risks of abuse and exploitation. In stark contrast, Donald Trump's policy has essentially withdrawn the right to seek asylum at the border outright, denying sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution.
Given the prominence of immigration during Trump's campaign, his 2024 electoral victory can be interpreted as a mandate to intensify border enforcement. This could involve bolstering border patrols or even extending the controversial border wall. However, Roth argues that a more appropriate and humane response would be to significantly increase the number of immigration judges—a matter of funding—to ensure claims are heard both fairly and expeditiously.
"Cutting the backlog would greatly decrease the time that asylum seekers without valid claims stay in the country," he asserts.
The Controversy of Deportation Raids and a Proposed Solution
Trump's aggressive deportation raids in neighbourhoods and workplaces have proven far more divisive. Of the estimated 14 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, a substantial majority—at least two-thirds and possibly up to 80%—have resided in the country for five years or more. Approximately 45% have been present for two decades or longer.
"The equities of deporting them are very different from deporting a recently arrived immigrant," Roth contends. While a recent arrival has established few roots, long-term residents often have US citizen spouses and children, hold steady jobs, pay taxes, and are woven into the fabric of their communities. In essence, they live as Americans in all but their documentation.
Advocates for stricter enforcement justify deportations by citing their illegal status, but Roth challenges this as an insufficient conclusion. He draws a compelling parallel to criminal law, which features statutes of limitations that, except for the most severe offences, bar prosecution unless charges are filed within five years. This legal principle reflects a societal view that individuals should eventually be allowed to move on with their lives.
"A crime is more serious than merely entering or staying in the United States without authorization, but in this respect US law treats the issue more severely: there is no recognized statute of limitations for immigration violations," Roth explains. This means an undocumented immigrant can be detained and deported even after decades of productive life in America.
Roth's proposed solution is clear: the United States needs a statute of limitations for immigration violations. He argues that if immigrants have not committed a serious crime while in the country, they should be permitted to stay if they have resided there for more than five years. This would mirror the principles already embedded in criminal law and address a profound unfairness.
Forging a Grand Bargain for the Future
This proposal, Roth suggests, could form the cornerstone of a grand bipartisan bargain. In exchange for strengthening border enforcement and increasing asylum system capacity to expedite rulings, the nation would formally recognise the injustice of deporting people who have built entire lives within its borders.
Such a compromise would represent a pragmatic nod to reality, given that Trump's high-profile raids capture only a tiny fraction of the undocumented population. Politically, it offers advantages to both major parties. Democrats could demonstrate they do not support the broadly unpopular concept of open borders, while Republicans could distance themselves from the increasingly toxic image of ICE summarily deporting colleagues and neighbours.
While a grand bargain would not resolve every immigration complexity—such as quotas for skilled workers, family unification, refugee resettlement, or temporary protected status—it could address a significant portion of what Americans find objectionable in both the old system and Trump's new approach. It represents a critical step toward a more just, functional, and sustainable immigration policy for the United States.
