By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 30, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

America does not need another election dominated by politicians telling us that the immigration system is broken.

We already know it is broken.

The question is what Congress intends to do about it.

For decades, immigration has been one of the most profitable political issues in America.

Republicans campaign on border security.

Democrats campaign on protecting immigrant communities.

Presidents issue executive actions.

Courts intervene.

Policies change.

Another election arrives.

And Congress still has not produced a durable immigration system capable of securing the border, providing workable legal immigration channels, responding to legitimate labor needs and deciding cases within reasonable periods of time.

At some point, Americans should stop accepting the explanation that immigration is simply too complicated to solve.

Congress was elected to solve complicated problems.

Start With the Border

A credible immigration compromise must begin by acknowledging something many Americans already believe:

The United States has the right to control its borders.

Border Patrol needs sufficient personnel.

Ports of entry need modern technology.

Drug and human-trafficking organizations must be confronted.

Immigration authorities need reliable information.

People attempting to enter the country should know that American immigration law will actually be enforced.

A functioning legal immigration system cannot coexist indefinitely with the perception that crossing illegally may be easier than following the lawful process.

Border security therefore should not belong exclusively to Republicans.

It should be a basic responsibility of the federal government.

But border enforcement is only the beginning.

Decide Immigration Cases Faster

A system that takes years to determine whether someone has a right to remain creates problems for everyone.

People with legitimate protection claims wait unnecessarily.

People without valid claims can remain for years while cases proceed.

Government detention and supervision cost taxpayers money.

Immigration courts accumulate enormous workloads.

Families live in uncertainty.

Congress should invest in enough immigration judges, support personnel, technology and administrative capacity to decide cases substantially faster while preserving meaningful legal protections.

Faster justice must still be justice.

But endless delay is not compassion.

It is administrative failure.

Create Legal Pathways That Match America’s Economic Needs

America needs workers.

Agriculture needs workers.

Construction needs workers.

Hotels need workers.

Restaurants need workers.

Healthcare and other industries also face workforce pressures.

That does not mean every person who wants to work in America should automatically be admitted.

It means Congress should examine whether existing lawful worker programs correspond to actual economic demand.

Where legitimate shortages exist, regulated pathways can provide workers legally.

Applicants can be screened.

Employers can be identified.

Taxes can be collected.

Labor protections can be enforced.

And workers can enter through established ports rather than depending on smugglers.

Legal immigration and border security should reinforce one another.

Make Employers Part of the Solution

America cannot seriously discuss unauthorized immigration while ignoring unauthorized employment.

Employers have responsibilities too.

Congress should create a reliable employment-verification system that businesses can actually use.

But enforcement must apply fairly.

Responsible employers should not be forced to compete against businesses that knowingly exploit unauthorized labor to reduce costs.

At the same time, immigration enforcement cannot become an excuse for exploiting immigrant workers.

If someone works in America, basic wage and workplace protections should be enforceable.

A worker’s vulnerability should never become a business model.

What About People Who Have Been Here for Years?

This will be one of the hardest parts of any immigration compromise.

Millions of people have established lives in the United States without permanent lawful status.

They are not all situated alike.

Congress should stop pretending that one answer fits everyone.

Length of residence should matter.

Criminal history should matter.

Family connections should matter.

Employment history should matter.

Compliance with taxes should matter.

The circumstances of arrival should matter.

Congress should debate a structured process for certain long-term residents who meet clearly defined requirements.

That process should not be automatic.

It should require background checks.

Serious criminal conduct should disqualify applicants.

Applicable taxes or financial obligations should be addressed.

Applicants should demonstrate sustained residence and satisfy conditions established by Congress.

Reasonable people can debate whether the final status should be permanent residence, another lawful classification, or a different mechanism.

But pretending these millions of people will simply disappear is not a policy.

Prioritize Dangerous Offenders

Immigration enforcement resources are finite.

That means priorities matter.

Individuals who present genuine threats to public safety should receive the highest enforcement priority.

Violent offenders.

Serious repeat offenders.

Members of criminal organizations when established through lawful procedures.

Individuals involved in trafficking and other serious crimes.

Prioritization does not mean other immigration laws cease to exist.

It means government uses its strongest resources first against the greatest threats.

That is common sense in every other area of law enforcement.

Immigration should not be different.

Protect Due Process

Strong enforcement and due process are not enemies.

If the government seeks to remove someone, follow the law.

If the person has a claim recognized by American law, hear it.

If the claim succeeds, respect the result.

If the claim fails and a lawful final removal order becomes enforceable, execute the order.

And if the government wrongfully removes someone without the legal process required in that person’s case, correct the error and provide an effective remedy.

That is not amnesty.

That is how a government governed by law should operate.

Stop Using Immigration as Foreign Policy Theater

Migration agreements with foreign governments may sometimes be necessary.

But Congress should know what agreements are being made.

How much do they cost?

What commitments has Washington provided?

Where are deportees being sent?

What protections exist?

What happens after they arrive?

Immigration enforcement should not become an obscure mechanism through which foreign-policy arrangements escape meaningful congressional scrutiny.

Congress controls appropriations and writes immigration laws.

It should exercise those responsibilities.

Give States and Cities Predictability

Federal immigration decisions have local consequences.

Schools.

Hospitals.

Housing.

Transportation.

Police departments.

Community organizations.

Local employers.

When migration increases rapidly, local governments frequently absorb immediate costs.

Washington cannot create immigration policies and then behave as though state and municipal governments have nothing to do with the consequences.

A durable immigration system should provide predictable coordination and clear responsibilities among federal, state and local authorities.

Build a System That Survives the Next President

This may be the most important reform.

Immigration policy cannot be reconstructed every four years.

A Republican president should not inherit one system and attempt to dismantle it immediately.

A Democratic president should not inherit another and reverse it immediately.

Congress should establish the fundamentals in statute.

Secure borders.

Functional legal immigration.

Efficient adjudication.

Employment verification.

Worker protections.

Clear enforcement priorities.

Defined humanitarian protections.

Accountability for government agencies.

And realistic procedures for people already living in the country.

Presidents will still have discretion.

But the basic architecture should belong to the law, not to whichever political party controls the White House.

There Is a Political Center

Americans are repeatedly told that immigration requires choosing between two extremes.

Open borders or mass deportation.

That is a false choice.

There is another position.

Secure the border.

Expand workable legal pathways where the country genuinely needs them.

Remove dangerous offenders.

Decide immigration cases faster.

Hold employers accountable.

Protect American workers.

Respect due process.

Create realistic rules for long-term residents.

And require government itself to obey the law.

None of those principles requires abandoning immigration enforcement.

None requires abandoning humanity.

They require governing.

Congress: Do Your Job

The United States Congress has spent enough time explaining immigration.

It is time to legislate.

Compromise will anger people on both sides.

Good.

That probably means both sides had to surrender something.

Republicans should accept that enforcement alone cannot create a functioning immigration system.

Democrats should accept that immigration laws and borders must actually be enforced.

Employers should accept responsibility for whom they hire.

Immigration advocates should accept that not every person who enters the United States will qualify to remain.

And government agencies should accept that enforcement power comes with accountability.

America is capable of building a better immigration system.

What it cannot afford is another decade of politicians campaigning against a problem they have no political incentive to solve.

Secure the border.

Respect the law.

Protect workers.

Preserve due process.

Create legal pathways that make economic sense.

And then allow Americans to finally have an immigration system instead of a permanent immigration crisis.

Congress, stop campaigning on immigration and fix it.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 29, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

The United States has the right to deport people when the law authorizes their removal.

But the United States does not have the right to ignore its own laws in order to accomplish that objective.

There must be a simple principle governing immigration enforcement:

If the government wrongfully deports someone without the legal process that person was entitled to receive, the government must correct the wrong.

And when restoring that person’s legal position requires returning him or her to the United States, the government should facilitate that return.

This should not be a partisan principle.

It should be an American one.

Deportation Is an Exercise of Enormous Government Power

Few administrative decisions have consequences as immediate as deportation.

A person can lose a job.

A home.

Daily contact with children.

A spouse.

A community.

And sometimes access to lawyers and courts capable of reviewing what happened.

That is precisely why the government must get these decisions right.

The answer cannot be:

We already put the person on the airplane, so the problem is over.

Government mistakes do not become lawful simply because they become difficult to reverse.

Due Process Must Mean Something

Due process does not mean everyone facing deportation has a right to remain in the United States.

It means the government must follow the legal procedures applicable to that person’s case before taking an irreversible action when the law requires those procedures.

There is an enormous difference.

If someone receives the process required by law, loses the case and becomes subject to a lawful final removal order, the government has authority to enforce that order.

But when the government itself unlawfully deprives someone of a legally required opportunity to present a claim or obey an applicable court order, a different principle applies.

The government must correct its mistake.

An Airplane Ticket Cannot Erase a Legal Violation

Imagine a government agency makes a serious error.

The individual is removed.

Then government lawyers argue that bringing the person back would be complicated because the individual is now outside American territory.

That cannot become a convenient escape from judicial review.

Otherwise the incentive would be dangerous.

Act first.

Remove the person.

Ask legal questions later.

The faster the government moves, the harder judicial review becomes.

That is exactly the opposite of what a system governed by law should encourage.

Courts must remain capable of providing meaningful remedies when government agencies act unlawfully.

The Government Should Restore What Its Error Took Away

The objective should not be rewarding someone because the government made a mistake.

The objective should be restoring the legal process.

If a person would have been entitled to remain temporarily in the United States while a particular proceeding occurred, the government should not gain an advantage by unlawfully removing that person before the proceeding could happen.

Correcting the error does not necessarily mean granting immigration status.

It does not automatically mean asylum.

It does not automatically mean permanent residency.

And it certainly does not automatically mean citizenship.

It means putting the individual back into the legal position he or she should have occupied before the government’s unlawful action.

Then the case can proceed.

And if the final lawful result is deportation, the government can enforce that result.

This Principle Protects Conservatives Too

Americans should be careful about viewing due process exclusively through immigration politics.

Today the person affected may be an undocumented immigrant whom many voters do not sympathize with.

Tomorrow government power may affect someone else.

A business owner.

A gun owner.

A political activist.

A taxpayer.

A journalist.

A property owner.

A religious organization.

A citizen accused of wrongdoing.

Constitutional government depends upon a principle larger than whether we personally like the individual invoking legal protections.

Government must follow the law even when dealing with unpopular people.

Especially then.

Immigration Officers Need Clear Rules

Accountability should not mean attacking immigration officers for performing lawful duties.

ICE officers and other federal personnel are responsible for enforcing laws enacted by Congress and policies established by lawful authority.

They need clear instructions.

Accurate information.

Reliable databases.

Professional legal guidance.

And procedures designed to prevent mistakes before someone is placed on an aircraft.

When an individual officer acts reasonably on incorrect information provided by the system, responsibility may extend far beyond that employee.

The purpose of accountability should be correcting institutional failures, not searching automatically for someone to punish.

But intentional violations are different.

No official should knowingly disregard a binding legal restriction and then expect government employment to provide immunity from ordinary accountability mechanisms.

Congress Should Require a Wrongful-Removal Procedure

Congress should consider establishing a clear statutory process for cases in which substantial evidence indicates that someone was removed contrary to applicable law or a binding court order.

The procedure should move quickly.

A person outside the United States should not spend months or years attempting to determine which agency has responsibility for correcting an acknowledged government error.

There should be a defined process.

Who reviews the case?

How quickly?

What evidence is required?

Who has authority to authorize return?

Who arranges transportation when return is legally necessary?

What immigration status applies temporarily after return?

What happens to the underlying removal proceeding?

Clear rules would protect immigrants, government agencies and taxpayers.

Correcting a Deportation Is Not Amnesty

This distinction must be absolutely clear.

Returning someone so that a legally required proceeding can occur is not the same as granting that person permission to remain permanently.

Suppose the government wrongfully removes someone and that individual returns for the legal process that should have occurred.

The government may ultimately win.

An immigration judge may reject the person’s claim.

Appeals may fail.

A lawful removal order may eventually become enforceable.

Then deportation can proceed.

That is not government weakness.

That is the rule of law working correctly.

The government followed the process.

The individual received the process.

The case ended.

And the lawful result was enforced.

No President Should Possess Unlimited Removal Power

This principle should apply regardless of party.

Republican president.

Democratic president.

Conservative administration.

Progressive administration.

The Constitution does not change every four years.

Americans make a serious mistake when they evaluate government power according to whether they trust the person currently holding that power.

Presidents change.

Precedents remain.

Every authority we tolerate when our preferred president occupies the White House becomes an authority available to the next president.

That should make all Americans cautious.

Enforce the Law — Including the Law That Restrains Government

The immigration debate repeatedly demands that migrants obey American law.

Fair enough.

But government must obey American law too.

That is the bargain.

Borders can be enforced.

People without lawful authorization can be removed when the law permits it.

Dangerous individuals can be prioritized.

Immigration orders can be executed.

None of those policies requires abandoning judicial review or treating government mistakes as irreversible.

America demonstrates strength when it enforces its laws.

America demonstrates something even more important when it is willing to correct itself after violating them.

So the principle should be straightforward:

If the deportation was lawful, enforce the law.

If the deportation was unlawful, correct it.

And when meaningful restoration of due process requires the person’s return to the United States, bring that person back, provide the process the law requires, and then let the lawful outcome determine what happens next.

That is not open borders.

That is not amnesty.

That is the rule of law.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

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.

By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 27, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

America has spent years arguing about immigration as though it were exclusively a border problem.

It is also a labor problem.

Walk into restaurants, hotels, construction sites, farms, warehouses, landscaping companies, cleaning services and many other American workplaces and another reality becomes impossible to ignore:

The United States depends heavily on immigrant labor.

Yet the country’s political system continues debating immigration without adequately connecting immigration policy to the actual needs of the American economy.

That contradiction cannot continue indefinitely.

America needs secure borders.

It needs immigration laws that are enforceable.

But it also needs workers.

A serious immigration policy must be capable of recognizing all three realities simultaneously.

Look Inside America’s Kitchens

Consider the restaurant industry.

Millions of Americans enjoy restaurants every day without thinking about the workforce behind the dining room.

Someone prepares the ingredients.

Someone cooks the food.

Someone washes the dishes.

Someone cleans the kitchen.

Someone receives deliveries.

Someone removes the garbage at closing time.

These jobs are physically demanding.

Many involve long hours, nights, weekends and holidays.

Immigrant workers have become an important part of that labor force.

The same reality appears in hotels.

Housekeeping.

Laundry.

Maintenance.

Food service.

Building services.

These workers are not abstract numbers in an immigration debate.

They are part of the infrastructure of everyday American life.

Construction Tells the Same Story

America says it needs more housing.

Cities need apartments.

Families need homes.

Infrastructure requires repair.

Businesses need commercial buildings.

But none of those projects construct themselves.

Electricians.

Carpenters.

Painters.

Roofers.

Concrete workers.

Plumbers.

Laborers.

Equipment operators.

The construction industry requires enormous numbers of skilled and semi-skilled workers.

Immigrants are deeply represented in that workforce.

If policymakers want America to build more housing and infrastructure, workforce availability must be part of the conversation.

You cannot demand faster construction while ignoring the people required to perform the work.

America Needs Agricultural Workers Too

The contradiction becomes even clearer in agriculture.

Americans expect grocery stores filled with affordable food.

But food must be planted.

Harvested.

Processed.

Packed.

Transported.

And distributed.

Agricultural employers have long relied heavily on immigrant workers, particularly for difficult seasonal jobs.

The political debate often focuses on who crosses the border.

The economic debate must also ask:

Who harvests the food?

If the United States wants a secure domestic food supply, labor policy and immigration policy cannot be treated as completely separate subjects.

Enforcement Alone Does Not Create Workers

Suppose the United States dramatically increases immigration enforcement.

Businesses still need employees the following morning.

The hotel still needs rooms cleaned.

The restaurant still needs dishes washed.

The farm still needs crops harvested.

The construction company still needs workers.

Enforcement may remove people from the labor market.

It does not automatically create replacements.

That does not mean immigration laws should be ignored because an industry wants inexpensive labor.

Quite the opposite.

It means Congress should create lawful systems capable of supplying workers when legitimate labor shortages exist.

Otherwise America creates an economic demand for immigrant labor while maintaining an immigration system incapable of responding adequately to that demand.

That is a recipe for disorder.

Businesses Have Responsibilities

Employers cannot demand immigration reform while benefiting from illegal employment practices.

Businesses must follow the law.

Workers should be properly documented where required.

Wages should comply with labor standards.

Payroll taxes should be paid.

Workplace protections should apply.

Immigrant workers should not become a permanent underclass that employers can exploit because they are afraid of government authorities.

A legal workforce protects responsible employers as well.

Businesses that follow labor laws should not have to compete against companies that reduce costs by exploiting undocumented workers.

Immigration reform and labor enforcement therefore belong in the same conversation.

More Legal Pathways Could Mean More Control

This is where the political debate often becomes unnecessarily ideological.

Creating lawful employment pathways does not mean opening the border.

It can mean exactly the opposite.

When employers have functioning legal mechanisms to obtain workers, there is less incentive to depend on unauthorized labor.

When workers can enter through regulated programs, the government knows who they are.

They can be screened.

Their employment can be documented.

Taxes can be collected.

Employers can be monitored.

Workers can have enforceable rights.

And visas can contain clear conditions.

A controlled legal pathway is fundamentally different from uncontrolled migration.

The United States should be capable of understanding that distinction.

Immigration Policy Should Respond to the Labor Market

America already has employment-based immigration and temporary-worker programs.

The larger question is whether the overall system responds effectively enough to changing labor demands.

Congress should regularly examine where genuine shortages exist.

Not every employer claiming a shortage should automatically receive foreign workers.

Businesses should first have incentives to recruit Americans and offer competitive wages.

But when persistent shortages remain, legal immigration should be capable of responding.

A modern economy requires a modern workforce policy.

Immigration is part of that policy whether politicians acknowledge it or not.

Protect American Workers

Any expansion of employment-based immigration must also protect American workers.

Immigration should not become a mechanism for suppressing wages.

Employers should not be allowed to replace American workers simply because another worker can be paid less.

Prevailing wage requirements, labor protections, enforcement against abusive employers and transparent recruitment rules can help prevent that.

The objective should be filling genuine economic needs, not creating cheap labor.

An immigration system that exploits immigrants eventually harms citizens as well.

Workers have more in common with one another than political rhetoric sometimes suggests.

Both benefit when labor standards are enforced.

Congress Needs to Connect the Two Debates

For too long, Washington has treated immigration policy and workforce policy as separate political conversations.

They are not.

If America needs workers, immigration policy matters.

If America wants higher wages, labor enforcement matters.

If America wants secure borders, legal immigration pathways matter.

If America wants businesses to follow immigration laws, those businesses need systems that are understandable and workable.

Congress should stop legislating as though these realities exist independently.

They are parts of the same system.

America Should Decide What It Actually Wants

The country cannot simultaneously say:

We need immigrant workers.

We do not have enough workers.

We want businesses to grow.

We want more housing built.

We want restaurants, hotels and farms operating.

But we refuse to seriously modernize the legal immigration system through which needed workers could enter.

Something eventually has to give.

Secure borders and legal immigration are not enemies.

They should complement each other.

The stronger the lawful system becomes, the easier it becomes to insist that immigration occur through that system.

America does not need uncontrolled immigration.

It needs controlled, legal and economically rational immigration.

And after decades of political arguments, Congress should finally recognize what millions of American workplaces already know:

Immigrant labor is part of the American economy.

The question is not whether that reality exists.

The question is whether Washington will finally build an immigration system capable of managing it.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 26, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

For decades, immigration has been inseparable from the relationship between Cuba and the United States.

Every major political confrontation between Washington and Havana eventually reaches the same place:

the Cuban family.

A policy changes in Washington.

A regulation changes in Havana.

Flights are interrupted or restored.

Visa procedures move from one country to another and back again.

Migration programs open, close or change.

Enforcement priorities shift.

And families are left trying to understand what the latest political decision means for a mother, a son, a grandparent or a spouse.

This has gone on for too long.

Cuban families should not become collateral damage in a political conflict they did not create.

The Cuban Family Now Lives in More Than One Country

Modern Cuban families are frequently transnational.

A mother may live in Havana while her children live in Florida.

A grandparent may remain in Matanzas while grandchildren grow up in Miami.

Brothers and sisters may be divided among Cuba, the United States, Spain, Mexico or other countries.

That reality has consequences.

Immigration policy is not simply moving individuals across borders.

It affects marriages.

It affects children.

It affects elderly parents.

It affects caregiving.

It affects family finances.

It affects whether people can be present when someone becomes sick or dies.

Governments have the authority to establish immigration rules.

But policymakers should understand the human structures those rules affect.

Legal Immigration Must Work If We Want Less Irregular Migration

There is a basic contradiction in immigration policy that Washington should address.

If the United States wants people to use legal immigration channels rather than irregular routes, those legal channels must function predictably.

A person considering migration makes choices based partly on whether a lawful pathway appears realistic.

When legal processes become excessively uncertain or inaccessible, desperation can push people toward dangerous alternatives.

That does not justify violating immigration law.

It does mean policymakers should understand incentives.

A credible immigration system needs both enforcement and functioning legal mechanisms.

Otherwise the government sends two contradictory messages:

Do not come illegally.

But do not expect the legal process to work efficiently either.

That is not sustainable policy.

Family Reunification Should Be Predictable

Family reunification has long been one of the foundations of American immigration law.

It should not mean automatic admission for everyone with a relative in the United States.

There must be eligibility requirements, security screening, documentation and legal procedures.

But once Congress establishes a lawful family immigration category, applicants should be able to understand the process.

What documents are required?

Approximately how long should the process take?

Where will the interview occur?

What happens when additional evidence is needed?

What avenues exist when a case becomes stuck?

Predictability matters.

People can organize their lives around a difficult rule.

It is much harder to organize their lives around constant uncertainty.

Elderly Parents Deserve Particular Attention

Cuba’s demographic situation makes family separation especially serious.

Many older Cubans remain on the island while younger relatives establish themselves abroad.

Those relatives frequently become an essential source of financial and practical support.

As parents age, the problem becomes more complicated.

Who takes them to medical appointments?

Who obtains medicines?

Who helps when mobility declines?

Who responds to an emergency?

Immigration policy cannot solve every family problem.

But policymakers should recognize that prolonged family separation has consequences extending far beyond politics.

A visa file represents a person.

And behind that person may be an entire family waiting.

Children Should Not Inherit a Political Conflict

Perhaps the saddest consequence of six decades of confrontation is that new generations continue inheriting disputes that began before they were born.

A Cuban child born today had nothing to do with 1959.

Neither did a young Cuban American born in Miami.

Yet both may grow up inside a political relationship still dominated by events from their grandparents’ generation.

History matters.

It should be remembered.

But history should help nations understand their mistakes, not require every generation to repeat them.

The objective of American policy should be protecting American interests in the present while building conditions for a better future.

That includes recognizing that maintaining family connections can contribute to long-term stability between societies.

Travel Is More Than Tourism

Family travel between the United States and Cuba is sometimes discussed almost entirely through the lens of money.

How much does travel economically benefit Cuba?

Where does a traveler stay?

Where does the money go?

Those are legitimate policy questions.

But family travel has another dimension.

A son visiting his mother is not merely a tourist.

A grandmother meeting her grandchildren is not simply an economic transaction.

A Cuban American returning for a funeral is not engaging in an abstract geopolitical exercise.

Policy should be capable of distinguishing between legitimate national-security concerns and ordinary human relationships.

The existence of political conflict does not erase family bonds.

Havana Has Responsibilities Too

This cannot be a conversation exclusively about Washington.

The Cuban government also has responsibilities toward Cuban families.

It should facilitate lawful travel.

It should avoid unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

It should provide clear documentation procedures.

It should recognize the reality of a global Cuban diaspora.

And political disagreement should never determine whether Cubans are treated with dignity when entering or leaving their country of birth.

If both governments claim to care about Cuban families, both governments should demonstrate it through policy.

Migration Should Not Be Used as Political Pressure

Human migration is powerful precisely because it affects governments politically.

Large migration flows can create pressure on neighboring countries.

They can overwhelm border systems.

They can become major electoral issues.

That makes migration tempting as a geopolitical instrument.

It should not be one.

Neither government should benefit politically from creating conditions that encourage uncontrolled migration.

The United States and Cuba have profound disagreements.

They will continue to have them.

But preventing dangerous and disorderly migration is an area where cooperation serves both countries.

It also serves Cuban families.

A Different Standard for Success

For decades, politicians have measured Cuba policy according to ideological objectives.

Perhaps another measurement should be added.

Are fewer Cuban families being separated?

Can people use orderly legal migration channels?

Can families understand the rules?

Can relatives travel safely?

Can elderly parents maintain relationships with children abroad?

Can Cubans make decisions about migration without believing that a dangerous journey is their only realistic option?

Those outcomes may not produce dramatic political speeches.

But they would improve real lives.

Governments Have Borders. Families Have Bonds.

The United States has the right to enforce its immigration laws.

Cuba has the right to regulate entry into its territory.

Neither principle requires indifference to families.

After more than sixty years of political confrontation, Washington and Havana should at least recognize one shared reality:

The Cuban family survived everything.

Revolution.

Exile.

Migration.

Economic crisis.

Political confrontation.

Generational change.

And separation across the Florida Straits.

It should not have to remain permanently trapped between two governments.

Immigration policy must have rules.

Borders must have laws.

Governments must protect their national interests.

But policy should never forget the people living underneath it.

Governments have borders.

Families have bonds.

And Cuban families should not have to sacrifice those bonds simply because Washington and Havana have spent generations unable to resolve their differences.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 25, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

Immigration enforcement is an executive responsibility, but executive power is not unlimited.

When the United States removes migrants to countries other than their own, the issue becomes larger than an ordinary deportation case.

It can involve foreign governments, diplomatic arrangements, American taxpayer money, detention systems, international obligations and decisions about what happens to people after they leave American custody.

That makes third-country deportations not only an immigration issue.

They are also a matter for congressional oversight.

Congress should start asking harder questions.

What Agreement Has the United States Made?

When another country agrees to receive migrants who are not its citizens, Americans deserve to know the basic structure of that arrangement.

Is there a written agreement?

Which American agency negotiated it?

What commitments did the United States make?

Is money involved?

Are security assistance, development funds or other benefits connected to the arrangement?

How long will the agreement remain in effect?

What responsibilities does the receiving country assume after accepting the deportees?

Not every diplomatic conversation can occur publicly.

But secrecy cannot become an excuse for avoiding democratic accountability.

If American policy depends upon foreign governments receiving people who have little connection to those countries, Congress has a legitimate responsibility to understand how and why those arrangements operate.

Follow the Money

Congress controls federal spending.

That alone gives lawmakers an important responsibility.

Third-country removal programs may involve transportation, detention, security, contractors, diplomatic negotiations and potentially payments or assistance to foreign governments.

How much does each removal cost?

How does that compare with removal to a person’s country of nationality?

Are American funds being transferred directly or indirectly to receiving governments?

Are private contractors involved?

What services are taxpayers purchasing?

These are ordinary oversight questions.

They should not become controversial simply because immigration is politically sensitive.

Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used.

What Happens After Arrival?

The government’s responsibility cannot be evaluated solely by confirming that an aircraft departed American territory.

Congress should understand what happens at the destination.

Are deportees released?

Are they detained?

If detained, under whose authority?

For how long?

Can they contact relatives?

Can they obtain legal assistance?

Can international humanitarian organizations reach them?

Can they seek lawful status in the receiving country?

Can they eventually return to their country of nationality?

These questions become especially important when a migrant has no meaningful family, cultural or historical connection to the country receiving him or her.

Removal should not create a system in which people effectively disappear from public view once they leave American custody.

Congress Should Demand Reporting

Congress does not necessarily need to prohibit third-country removals in order to exercise meaningful oversight.

It can require information.

The executive branch could be required to report periodically on the number of people removed to third countries, their nationalities, receiving countries, program costs, applicable agreements and safeguards.

Congress could also require notification when new third-country arrangements are established.

Classified information could remain protected when genuinely necessary.

But basic policy information should be available to lawmakers — and as much as reasonably possible to the public.

Transparency disciplines government.

It forces officials to explain decisions before those decisions become permanent policy.

Oversight Is Not Obstruction

In today’s political environment, congressional oversight is often portrayed as partisan interference.

That is a mistake.

Oversight is one of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.

When Democrats control the White House, Republicans should scrutinize executive power.

When Republicans control the White House, Democrats should scrutinize executive power.

And members of the president’s own party should not abandon their institutional responsibilities merely because they support the administration.

Congress is not an extension of the White House.

It is a separate branch of government.

Immigration policy does not change that fact.

Foreign Policy Cannot Be Conducted Through Immigration Alone

Third-country deportation arrangements also raise a broader question.

What happens when immigration policy begins shaping America’s relationships with smaller or economically vulnerable countries?

A government may agree to receive deportees because it wants economic assistance, diplomatic recognition, security cooperation or improved relations with Washington.

That possibility does not automatically make an agreement illegitimate.

But it does make scrutiny necessary.

Congress should understand whether immigration arrangements are becoming instruments of foreign policy and what commitments are being made in exchange.

The American public deserves to know whether immigration enforcement is creating obligations abroad that extend beyond immigration itself.

There Must Be Standards for Receiving Countries

Not every country should automatically qualify as an appropriate destination.

Congress should consider establishing clear standards governing third-country removals.

Those standards could examine whether the receiving government can provide basic security, whether deportees will be treated according to applicable law, whether mechanisms exist for monitoring their treatment and whether the country has the institutional capacity to receive them.

The purpose would not be to prevent immigration enforcement.

It would be to establish predictable rules.

Government power works better when officials know the boundaries before making decisions.

The Question Is Bigger Than One Administration

Americans should resist evaluating executive authority only according to whether they support the president currently exercising it.

Every precedent survives the administration that creates it.

A power expanded today may be inherited by a president with completely different political objectives tomorrow.

That is why Congress must defend its institutional authority regardless of party.

The question is not simply whether one agrees with a particular deportation.

The question is:

What powers should any president possess when transferring people to foreign countries?

That deserves a serious national discussion.

Congress Should Act Like Congress

Immigration policy has become dominated by presidential actions, federal agencies, court battles and political rhetoric.

Congress frequently complains from the sidelines.

That is not enough.

Lawmakers have legislative authority.

They control appropriations.

They conduct hearings.

They can subpoena witnesses and documents where legally appropriate.

They can require reporting.

They can establish statutory standards.

And they can investigate whether federal programs are operating as Congress intended.

Third-country deportations provide another test of whether Congress is willing to exercise those responsibilities.

The United States can enforce immigration law.

It can negotiate with foreign governments.

It can remove individuals who have no lawful right to remain when the law permits removal.

But when American policy sends people to countries that are not their own, Americans deserve more than a government announcement after the decision has already been made.

They deserve to know the rules.

They deserve to know the costs.

They deserve to know the agreements.

And Congress should insist on knowing what happens after the airplane lands.

Immigration enforcement requires authority.

Democratic government requires accountability.

The United States should demand both.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

By Pastor Herrera Macurán
Horizonte Cubano News
August 24, 2026 — Afternoon Edition

The United States has every right to control its borders.

It has the right to determine who may enter the country, who may remain, and under what conditions. It also has the authority to remove people who have no legal right to stay.

But immigration enforcement does not give the government unlimited power.

Due process does not end at the border.

That principle should matter to Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, immigrants and citizens alike, because the question is larger than immigration.

The real question is how much power Americans are willing to give their government when dealing with people who have the least ability to defend themselves.

A Nation of Laws Must Follow Its Own Laws

There is nothing contradictory about supporting strong immigration enforcement while demanding due process.

In fact, the two principles should reinforce each other.

If the government believes someone should be deported, it should demonstrate that the removal is lawful.

If an immigrant has a legal claim to remain, that claim should be considered through the procedures established by law.

If the claim fails, the government may enforce the resulting order.

That is how a system based on law is supposed to function.

Due process does not guarantee that an immigrant wins a case.

It guarantees that there is a legitimate process for deciding the case.

That distinction is fundamental.

Immigration Enforcement Cannot Become Collective Judgment

One of the dangers of an intensely polarized immigration debate is the tendency to place millions of people into a single category.

But immigrants are individuals.

Their circumstances vary enormously.

Some recently crossed the border.

Some have lived in the United States for decades.

Some have American spouses or children.

Some have pending immigration proceedings.

Some are asylum seekers.

Some have criminal records.

Many do not.

Some entered legally and later lost their immigration status.

Others were brought into the country as children.

A functioning legal system must be capable of recognizing these differences.

The government should enforce immigration law based on individual facts and applicable law — not political slogans.

Criminality and Immigration Status Are Not the Same Thing

This distinction is particularly important.

Being unlawfully present in the United States does not automatically make someone a violent criminal.

At the same time, immigration status should not shield someone who commits serious crimes.

A rational immigration system should prioritize individuals who present genuine threats to public safety while processing other immigration cases according to law.

Americans should be able to support the removal of dangerous offenders without accepting the proposition that every undocumented immigrant should be treated as though he or she presents the same danger.

Public policy requires distinctions.

Politics often prefers slogans.

Government Power Needs Limits

There is another reason Americans should care about due process even if they personally favor aggressive immigration enforcement.

Government powers rarely remain confined forever to the circumstances under which they were created.

Authorities granted to one administration can later be used by another.

That is why constitutional safeguards should never depend upon whether we happen to agree with the president currently exercising power.

Today the issue may be immigration.

Tomorrow it may involve another category of people.

The principle remains the same:

Government must operate within the law.

Americans should be extremely cautious about creating a political culture in which accusations alone are considered sufficient and judicial review is portrayed as an obstacle.

Courts are not an inconvenience.

They are part of the American constitutional system.

Secure Borders and Due Process Can Coexist

The United States does not need to choose between controlling immigration and respecting legal rights.

It can do both.

The country can invest in border security.

It can improve immigration courts.

It can accelerate legitimate asylum decisions.

It can remove individuals after lawful final orders.

It can prioritize dangerous offenders.

It can prosecute trafficking organizations.

It can improve employment verification.

And it can simultaneously ensure that people have meaningful opportunities to raise claims the law recognizes before irreversible removal occurs.

That is not weakness.

That is competent government.

Congress Has Responsibilities Too

Presidents receive enormous attention during immigration controversies, but Congress cannot escape responsibility for a system it has repeatedly failed to modernize.

American immigration law is extraordinarily complicated.

Immigration courts face enormous pressures.

Legal immigration pathways often involve lengthy processes.

Asylum procedures are politically contested.

Employers continue to depend on immigrant labor in several sectors of the economy.

Meanwhile, administrations of both parties attempt to solve through executive authority problems that ultimately require legislation.

Congress cannot spend decades avoiding comprehensive legislative responsibility and then act surprised when immigration policy becomes increasingly dependent on presidential power.

Lawmakers must legislate.

Enforcement Must Remain Accountable

Immigration officers perform difficult and often dangerous jobs.

They deserve clear laws, adequate resources, professional training and political leadership that does not use them as props in partisan battles.

But respect for law enforcement does not mean eliminating accountability.

When allegations of misconduct arise, they should be investigated.

When officers act lawfully, they should be defended.

When officials exceed their authority, appropriate consequences should follow.

No government employee should fear accountability when acting within the law.

And no government employee should be above accountability when violating it.

That principle protects both the public and honorable law-enforcement officers.

America Is Strong Enough to Do Both

Immigration has become one of America’s most emotional political debates.

But the solution does not have to come from either extreme.

We do not need open borders.

And we do not need government without limits.

We need immigration laws that can actually be enforced, courts capable of processing cases efficiently, secure borders, legal pathways that respond to economic realities, and a government that respects constitutional principles while exercising its authority.

The United States should enforce its immigration laws.

It should remove individuals when the law ultimately requires removal.

It should protect its borders.

But it should never accept the idea that efficiency requires abandoning due process.

Because once government convinces citizens that legal protections are inconvenient when applied to unpopular people, those protections become weaker for everyone.

Secure the border.

Enforce the law.

Respect the courts.

Protect due process.

America is capable of doing all four.

Pastor Herrera Macurán is the founder of Horizonte Cubano News. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.