Politics
America needs an immigration debate — just not the one we're having
Immigration will figure prominently in the 2024 presidential campaign, continuing its run as one of the nation’s longest-running and most divisive issues.
Republicans plan to feature the troubles at the southern border as evidence for their argument that President Biden is failing. Former President Trump has amped up his already inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, accusing migrants of “poisoning the blood” of Americans.
He focused on the subject again in his speech after winning Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, saying that if he were elected he would enforce “a deportation level that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time … since the Eisenhower administration.”
Democrats find themselves on the back foot. Public support for immigration, which rose during the Trump years, has sunk since Biden took office, no doubt partly because of chaotic scenes at the border. While immigration issues unify Republicans, they divide Democrats.
The Times’ most recent UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll of California voters provided clear evidence of the party’s divisions: Asked whether immigrants in the U.S. without authorization have created a burden for the country, Republican voters almost unanimously said they did.
Democrats were divided, with about 1 in 5 saying the migrants created a “major burden,” 2 in 5 saying they created a “minor burden” and about one-third saying they were not a burden.
Sidestepping the big issue
The result is a one-sided debate: Republicans have relentlessly been on the attack, and Democrats have taken a defensive crouch.
For the last couple of months, the White House, for example, has been trying to make concessions to Republicans in hopes of reaching a compromise on border security. So far, the talks haven’t achieved their goal, but the debate has further soured relations between the president and his party’s left wing.
As the debate has droned on, neither party has seriously tried to grapple with the biggest issue: Just how many immigrants does the U.S. need?
The immigration trade-off
For any country, immigration poses a trade-off. On the one hand, newcomers bring new ideas, new resources and welcome vitality. The poll of American immigrants that The Times did last year with KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, vividly illustrated how immigrants today are the keepers of the flame when it comes to optimism about the future — once a hallmark of American society.
But high levels of immigration can also bring social instability. Large numbers of unskilled immigrants can depress wages in certain parts of the economy, at least for a time. And new residents with new customs can generate a backlash, as the U.S. has vividly seen in recent years.
Striking the right balance is complicated, but it starts with grappling seriously with the question of what level of immigration would be optimal.
The answer: A lot more — at least if the U.S. wants to slow the graying of its population and stave off long-term population decline, demographers say.
Declining population growth
This decade probably will experience the smallest percentage population growth in U.S. history, said Brookings Institution demographic expert William Frey. That’s partially the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased death rates and caused some couples to postpone having children. But even with the pandemic receding, the U.S. is heading for very little growth in the years to come.
That’s a huge change from the past. Since 1900, the U.S. population mostly grew between 1% and 2% each year. The exceptions came during traumatic periods — the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, the Great Depression.
Now, according to Census Bureau projections, the country is, at most, likely to have about 4% population growth over this entire decade. The rate will slow further after that.
Should you worry about that?
Some people would say no. Among environmental activists, for example, some take the view that fewer Americans would be a good thing because our lifestyle uses more resources than in other countries.
But there are other ways to reduce the American impact on the global environment — greater reliance on renewable energy, for example.
And a U.S. population decline imposes real, and heavy, costs.
If you plan to retire, or care about the country’s military strength or its economy, an aging or declining population is definitely something to be concerned about.
An older population with a shrinking number of workers makes paying for Social Security or other retirement programs much harder, for example, because there are fewer workers to support a growing number of retirees.
Countries such as Japan and Italy, which are aging faster than the U.S., are already experiencing the problems that population decline brings. Even China, which decades ago adopted drastic policies to hold down its population, is now anxiously trying to restart population growth.
Those countries, notably, don’t allow much immigration.
1 million a year. Or more?
The chief reason for slower growth is a demographic shift that the U.S. shares with almost every other wealthy, developed country: Women are having fewer children, and the population, on average, is getting older.
The U.S. staved off that decline longer than most developed countries, mostly because of “healthy immigration levels from the early 1980s to around the 2010s,” Frey said.
But starting in 2007, with the onset of the Great Recession, population growth rates tumbled and have not recovered.
What population growth has occurred has mostly been due to immigration, Frey recently reported, based on an analysis of census data.
The number of immigrants entering the U.S. slowed sharply during President Trump’s years in office, in part because of new restrictions on legal immigration. Under President Biden, the level has rebounded to about 1 million in 2021 and 1.1 million in 2022.
But even at a rate of 1 million new arrivals a year, U.S. population growth would flatline in about 40 years and then slowly begin to decline, the census says. If immigration were held to the level of the Trump years, the U.S. population would level off in about 15 years and go down after that.
Conservative advocates of less immigration sometimes argue that a decline can be avoided with policies that would entice women into having more children. So far, however, such policies have almost universally failed in countries that have tried them, and even rudimentary pro-family policies, such as subsidized child care, have failed to be approved in the U.S., largely because of opposition from the same conservative political figures who want less immigration.
In the absence of a dramatic, and wholly unlikely, increase in the U.S. birthrate, keeping the population growth at something close to the historical average would require what the census describes as a “high immigration” scenario — about 1.5 million immigrants a year.
Perhaps, as Trump and his allies believe, Americans simply won’t accept that level of newcomers. If that’s the case, however, there’s an inevitable price to pay: an aging population, a declining workforce and a less vibrant America.
A presidential campaign would be a good opportunity to focus voters on that trade-off. But don’t bet on it.
There’s little evidence that America’s gridlocked political system is capable of such a straightforward debate.
Politics
Carney casts himself as NATO defender amid Trump beef, despite Canada missing key benchmark for decades
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney defended his country’s NATO commitments after being pressed over alliance spending by President Donald Trump, insisting Ottawa meets the benchmark – even though Canada only reached the 2% defense target in 2025.
Speaking recently at a press conference in Monteregie, Quebec, Carney said Iran remains a “grave threat” to the Middle East and beyond and argued Canada is meeting its obligations to the alliance.
But Canada only reached NATO’s 2% defense spending benchmark in 2025, after spending years well below the target. Carney acknowledged Ottawa had not hit that mark since the Cold War, underscoring the vulnerability in his pushback to Trump.
“I’ll underscore that just a few weeks ago that we’ve met for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall our NATO commitments in terms of 2% defense spending,” Carney added.
ECONOMIST EDITOR SAYS EUROPEAN LEADERS NOW FEAR A TRUE NATO ‘DIVORCE’ AFTER TRUMP PULLOUT THREAT
Trump has blasted some NATO allies over what he sees as weak support during the Iran conflict, warning on Truth Social that the alliance “wasn’t there when we needed them and they won’t be there if we need them again.”
When a reporter pressed that Trump threatened to punish NATO, including conflict-averse members Germany and Spain, Carney boasted that Canada “meet[s] its NATO commitments.”
NATO’s 2014-2025 defense expenditure report estimated Canada’s defense spending at 1.01% of GDP in 2014, and below 1.5% through 2024 before reaching 2.01% in 2025.
NATO CHIEF SAYS WORLD IS ‘ABSOLUTELY’ SAFER UNDER TRUMP
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has praised Trump for pushing allies to meet the 2% benchmark, as several Eastern Bloc nations have noticeably increased their tithes.
Over the past decade, U.S. defense spending has averaged roughly 3.3% of GDP, compared with about 1.3% for Canada. The U.S. GDP is also a higher gross figure than all other NATO members in dollars.
MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP
Tensions between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump flared after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Renaud Philippe/Bloomberg; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Greece and the U.K. have been the top two countries consistently contributing to NATO’s funding, while Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary all sit in the lower tier on average. The only outlier below them is Luxembourg, which contributes an average 0.6% of GDP to NATO, according to calculations made from the report’s figures.
TRUMP LASHES OUT AT ‘SICK’ IRANIAN LEADERS, CONFIRMS ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR ENDING WAR
Rutte previously made waves for appearing to refer to Trump as “daddy,” but said this week the Dutch-to-English translation was flawed and that he meant to refer to the president as a strong disciplinarian-like figure at a time when Trump was angry at both Israel and Iran.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“In Dutch, you would say the translation of your father is ‘daddy’ and I would say hey, yeah, some time, Daddy has to be angry, so I wasn’t going to say [he’s my] daddy,” he said of a meeting between the two men in The Hague last June.
Rutte issued the response after being pressed on whether he still viewed Trump as “Daddy” or an ally amid the president’s issues with some member-nations.
Politics
DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in
WASHINGTON — Last September, the Department of Homeland Security started advising unaccompanied immigrant children that they could either self-deport or expect to face long-term detention.
But a federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday ordered the government to stop using such “blatantly coercive” language, ruling that the new advisals, as they are known, violated a 40-year-old court order that bans immigration agents from pressuring unaccompanied children to give up asylum claims and leave the U.S.
According to court documents, the legal advisal was given to recently detained immigrant children. Unaccompanied children are those in the country without a parent or legal guardian.
The minors were told they had the option to return to their country, that doing so would result in no administrative consequences and that they still could apply for a visa in the future.
But the children also were told that if they chose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicated that they were afraid to leave the U.S., they could expect to be held at a detention facility “for a prolonged period of time.”
Those who turned 18 while in custody would be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, they were told. The advisal, though generally passed on verbally, was written out in court documents by lawyers representing the immigrant children, which the government did not dispute.
“If your sponsor in the United States does not have legal immigration status, they will be subject to arrest and removal,” the advisals continued. “The sponsor may be subject to criminal prosecution for aiding your illegal entry.”
U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said that “such a threat disturbingly mirrors” the testimony of Jose Antonio Perez-Funez, a plaintiff in a 1980s class-action lawsuit challenging the tactics of immigration officers.
Perez-Funez, who was 16 when he was arrested near the Mexican border, testified in 1985 in Los Angeles federal court that he agreed to self-deport because federal officers said he would face lengthy detention if he didn’t return to El Salvador.
Perez-Funez’s case originally led the court to establish due process safeguards for immigrant children, giving them the right to speak with a relative or attorney before signing forms that waive their pursuit of legal protection.
“The Government was thus already on notice that such a statement delivered in this environment is precisely the kind of inappropriate persuasion the Injunction sought to prevent,” Fitzgerald wrote.
Fitzgerald, a judge in the Central District of California, also denied a request by the federal government to end the permanent court-mandated safeguards for immigrant children altogether.
In response to a request for comment, U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided a statement, attributed to a spokesperson who wasn’t named, that the agency is following the law and protecting children. The agency said the advisal document explains to unaccompanied children their options available under federal law.
“Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential,” the statement said. “It ensures they understand their rights and options — and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.”
Unaccompanied children are first held by Homeland Security before being turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is within the Department of Health and Human Services, for long-term housing. Federal law requires ORR to provide them with a legal consultation within 10 days.
“It is difficult to imagine a scenario more coercive than the one faced by [unaccompanied immigrant children] in the 72 hours before they are transferred into ORR custody, particularly for noncitizen children who likely do not know whether they possess any rights at all,” Fitzgerald wrote in his order.
In declarations to the court, children wrote that they felt threatened by the government’s advisals. One minor, identified as D.A.T.M., said the threats to prosecute their parents and of long-term detention caused them to sign voluntary departure papers.
Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney at the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, helped secure the 1986 court order. He said his legal team discovered Homeland Security had changed the advisals only after a government attorney notified him in November that the agency was going to seek to end the court-mandated safeguards.
“I consider this a war on children — the most vulnerable population,” he said.
The government has until Thursday to decide whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Regardless, Rosenbaum said, his goal is to establish more aggressive monitoring of unaccompanied children’s cases to ensure their rights aren’t violated again.
Politics
Trump blasts Spanberger ahead of Virginia meetings, says state faces tax base exodus like New York, California
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump slammed Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger ahead of meetings in the state Saturday, warning her policies are triggering a tax base exodus similar to New York and California.
Trump, in an early morning Truth Social post, said the Democratic governor had imposed a wave of taxes he argued were draining the state’s economic strength.
“She is adding so many Taxes, a Food and Beverage Tax, Digital Services Tax, Utilities Tax, and more,” Trump wrote. “It has lost its Energy, Vitality, and Strength. People are leaving that would never have even thought of doing so!”
Trump’s comments come as Republicans have criticized Democrats in the state legislature over a slate of tax and revenue proposals, warning the measures could hurt Virginia’s business climate, though the governor has not publicly supported or signed the measures referenced by Trump.
GLENN YOUNGKIN ACCUSES GOV SPANBERGER OF ‘ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ GERRYMANDERING IN VIRGINIA MAP FIGHT
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and President Donald Trump (Marvin Joseph/Getty Images; Brendan Smilowski/AFP)
“New companies that signed to come into the Commonwealth under Governor Youngkin are now looking for ways to get out — Break their Deal,” he said.
The president, who said he was heading to Virginia for meetings at Trump National Golf Club, drew comparisons to high-tax states like New York and California, which he has frequently criticized.
“We have a similar situation in New York and, most of all, in California, where Rich, Job Producing people and companies are being forced to FLEE at levels never seen before,” Trump wrote.
He added that California’s tax base was “literally disappearing” as wealthy individuals and corporations relocate, warning Virginia could face a similar trajectory.
VA DEM REJECTS ‘POWER GRAB’ CLAIMS ON SPANBERGER REDISTRICTING AS GOP WARNS 10–1 MAP WOULD SPLIT RURAL VOTE
The Virginia State Capitol during the inauguration ceremony of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger in Richmond Jan. 17, 2026. (Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Getty Images)
“Remember, once people and companies leave, they are never coming back!” Trump said.
Spanberger pushed back on the criticism in a post on X, arguing Trump and his allies were mischaracterizing her policies.
“The president and his allies are talking about taxes that our state legislature never even voted on and I certainly didn’t sign,” she wrote. “Why? Because if they don’t flood the zone with fake news about fake taxes, people might hear about the bills I am signing to lower energy costs, strengthen our schools, make housing more affordable, and bring billions of dollars of business investment to Virginia.”
Spanberger has supported a broader set of revenue measures since taking office, including proposals targeting digital services and business activity, as part of an effort to fund priorities such as education and health care.
A spokesperson for Spanberger’s office also issued a statement criticizing Trump’s claims.
“Virginians are tired of Donald Trump’s lies,” the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. “Governor Spanberger has signed dozens of bipartisan bills to contend with high housing, healthcare and energy costs for Virginians — and not any of the taxes President Trump and his allies are lying about.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The spokesperson added that businesses have announced “more than $500 million in new investment in the commonwealth since Governor Spanberger took office in January,” while accusing Trump of focusing on politics instead of economic stability.
On Saturday, House Speaker Mike Johnson and former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin also took aim at Spanberger as a state vote on redistricting approaches during a rally in Rockingham County opposing Democrats’ proposed 10-1 gerrymander ahead of the April 21 referendum election.
“She talks like a moderate, and she governs like a Marxist,” Johnson said. “I mean, this is serious stuff.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Feb. 24, 2026, in Williamsburg, Va. (Mike Kropf/Getty Images)
Johnson also warned that the outcome in Virginia could have national implications, citing the GOP’s narrow House majority.
Youngkin, meanwhile, accused Spanberger of weakening public safety policies in the state.
“She says she’s going to stand for public safety, and she makes Virginia a sanctuary state after one of the most successful federal-state collaborations in the entire country,” Youngkin said. “We arrested thousands of violent criminals who are here illegally, and she put a stop to it.”
Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears in the 2025 gubernatorial race, securing a Democratic win. Youngkin was not eligible for re-election under state law.
Spanberger campaigned on issues including health care and abortion rights, while positioning herself as a more moderate alternative despite GOP criticism of her voting record.
Fox News Digital’s Preston Mizell contributed to this report.
-
Atlanta, GA1 week ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
Georgia5 days agoGeorgia House Special Runoff Election 2026 Live Results
-
Pennsylvania6 days agoParents charged after toddler injured by wolf at Pennsylvania zoo
-
Arkansas2 days agoArkansas TV meteorologist Melinda Mayo retires after nearly four decades on air
-
Milwaukee, WI6 days agoPotawatomi Casino Hotel evacuated after fire breaks out in rooftop HVAC system
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoFighting Illini begin Final Four preparations in Indianapolis
-
Technology1 week agoAnthropic essentially bans OpenClaw from Claude by making subscribers pay extra
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoPuppy rescued after getting stuck on chimney in Detroit