By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 28, 2026 — Afternoon Edition
America’s immigration system has a problem that goes beyond the southern border.
It lacks permanence.
One administration establishes a policy.
The next administration reverses it.
Executive orders change.
Enforcement priorities change.
Humanitarian programs change.
Border procedures change.
Rules affecting families, employers and migrants change.
Then another election arrives and the process begins again.
This is not a sustainable way for the world’s most powerful country to manage immigration.
America needs an immigration policy, not a four-year immigration experiment.
Immigration Cannot Depend Primarily on Who Occupies the White House
Presidents have legitimate executive authority.
Immigration agencies must enforce the laws Congress has enacted, and every administration will naturally establish priorities within those laws.
But there is a difference between setting priorities and allowing fundamental elements of immigration policy to swing dramatically whenever political control changes.
People make life-changing decisions based on these rules.
Families decide whether to wait.
Businesses decide whether they can hire workers.
Migrants decide whether legal pathways appear realistic.
Federal agencies allocate personnel and resources.
State and local governments prepare for migration flows.
When the rules constantly change, uncertainty becomes part of the system.
That uncertainty benefits no one.
Congress Created the Vacuum
Presidents did not create this problem alone.
Congress has repeatedly failed to resolve major structural weaknesses in American immigration law.
That failure creates a vacuum.
And presidents fill vacuums.
When Congress does not legislate, administrations search for whatever authority existing statutes provide.
Then opponents go to court.
Federal judges intervene.
Appeals follow.
Policies are blocked, restored, modified or replaced.
The result is an immigration system increasingly shaped by executive actions and litigation rather than durable legislation.
Congress cannot complain about presidential power while refusing to exercise its own.
Border Security Needs a Long-Term Plan
Border security should not be reinvented every election cycle.
The United States should determine what capabilities it actually needs.
How many Border Patrol agents?
What technology?
What physical barriers are useful in particular locations?
What surveillance systems?
What infrastructure at ports of entry?
How should asylum claims be processed?
How should narcotics trafficking be confronted?
What personnel and facilities are necessary?
These are operational questions.
They deserve long-term planning.
Border security should function regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat wins the next presidential election.
A secure border is a national responsibility, not a campaign slogan.
Legal Immigration Needs Predictability Too
People following the law should be able to understand the system.
Employers seeking workers legally need predictable procedures.
American citizens petitioning for qualifying relatives need understandable rules.
Students, professionals and temporary workers need to know what requirements apply.
Refugees and asylum seekers need clear standards.
The answer in every case cannot be:
Wait for the next election.
A lawful immigration system becomes stronger when people believe following the rules produces a predictable process.
Constant policy reversals weaken that confidence.
States and Cities Pay for Washington’s Instability
Federal immigration policy does not remain in Washington.
Its consequences arrive in communities.
Cities may need emergency shelter.
Schools receive new students.
Hospitals provide care.
Local governments coordinate services.
Employers experience changes in labor availability.
Police departments navigate relationships with immigrant communities.
When federal policy changes abruptly, state and local governments often receive the consequences without having participated meaningfully in the decision.
A more stable national immigration policy would allow communities to plan rather than continuously react.
Migrants Respond to Signals
Immigration policy communicates.
When Washington announces a new program, people hear about it throughout the hemisphere.
When restrictions change, that information travels too.
Smugglers exploit confusion.
Rumors spread through social media.
People may begin journeys based on incomplete or false information.
That is another reason consistency matters.
The message should be understandable:
The border is controlled.
Illegal entry has consequences.
Protection claims are processed according to clear rules.
Legal immigration pathways exist where Congress has authorized them.
Employment programs operate according to transparent standards.
Those principles should not disappear every four years.
Immigration Policy Must Survive Elections
A durable immigration compromise will disappoint political activists on both sides.
That is probably unavoidable.
Those who want almost unrestricted immigration will not get everything they want.
Those who believe mass deportation alone can resolve decades of migration and labor-market realities will not get everything they want either.
Successful legislation requires tradeoffs.
Stronger border enforcement could accompany more functional legal immigration.
Faster asylum decisions could accompany stronger consequences after unsuccessful claims.
Employment verification could accompany improved lawful worker programs.
Enforcement could coexist with realistic solutions for certain long-term residents, subject to conditions established by Congress.
The exact formula should be debated.
But the objective should be legislation capable of surviving the next election.
Immigration Should Stop Being Political Theater
Immigration is politically useful precisely because the problem remains unresolved.
Politicians can campaign on it.
Television programs can argue about it.
Political organizations can raise money from it.
Candidates can blame one another.
But Americans should ask a different question:
Who benefits when the immigration system never actually gets fixed?
Certainly not border communities.
Not immigration officers.
Not American workers.
Not responsible employers.
Not families using legal immigration channels.
And not taxpayers financing a system permanently operating in crisis mode.
At some point, governing must replace campaigning.
America Knows How to Build Permanent Institutions
The United States manages enormously complicated systems.
It operates the world’s most powerful military.
It administers Social Security.
It regulates aviation.
It maintains interstate infrastructure.
It operates a vast federal court system.
It manages international trade relationships.
America possesses the institutional capacity to administer immigration competently.
What has been missing is sustained political agreement.
Immigration should have clear rules.
The border should be secure.
Legal pathways should function.
Employers should know their responsibilities.
Migrants should understand the consequences of violating the law.
Courts should have sufficient capacity to decide cases without extraordinary delays.
And those fundamentals should remain substantially intact when presidents change.
America will always debate immigration.
That is normal in a democracy.
But the country should not reconstruct its immigration system after every presidential inauguration.
Elections should determine who administers the government.
They should not determine whether the immigration system has rules anyone can rely upon.
Congress has avoided this responsibility for too long.
It is time to build an immigration policy designed to last longer than a presidential term.
Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.