What will 2026 bring for US migration policy?

Across the country, the consequences of a deterrence-only approach to immigration are mounting. Mass deportations separate families and sweep up workers. New visa policies and the hostile political climate make it harder for American universities to attract foreign students. Employers face growing barriers to hiring the engineers and nurses they cannot find domestically. Raids empty factories and farms, leaving owners with orders they cannot fill and crops they cannot harvest. For the first time since the 1930s net migration turned negative in 2025, reducing consumer spending by about $50 billion and reducing GDP growth. This is not what success looks like.

Nor is it inevitable. The policies we see today are the result, in part, of a decades-long failure to modernize the country’s immigration system. But they also reflect a false narrative: That ever more draconian policies are the unavoidable price of securing the border. The last few months have shown where that logic leads. It is ugly, expensive, and—according to polls—deeply unpopular.

We know from recent experience it does not have to be this way.

During the Biden administration, the United States confronted the largest displacement shock in the Western Hemisphere’s history. The administration made real missteps—waiting too long to surge support to cities struggling with record migrant arrivals and adopting a purely defensive communications posture. But crisis was also a catalyst for innovation—enforcement measures were paired with new lawful pathway initiatives to bring irregular migration to manageable levels. Parole programs—imperfect, temporary, but necessary—gave migrants alternatives to irregular entry and boosted the U.S. economy. Regional diplomacy helped stabilize populations abroad, with countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru regularizing more than 4.5 million Venezuelans. By the end of 2024, this balanced approach reduced border encounters by over 80%.

This policy mix worked because it changed incentives. When migrants had a viable path to apply legally, they were less likely to pay smugglers or attempt repeated crossings. Those who crossed irregularly encountered consequences. The result was a rare thing in immigration policy: A feedback loop that reduced pressure on the system instead of overwhelming it.

Those lessons learned can help prevent future surges and more importantly, help build an immigration system that serves the country’s many interests. Temporary visas can meet seasonal labor needs. Longer-term resident visas can retain high skilled talent that fuels innovation and job creation. Refugee pathways can protect people with no safe alternative. Family visas can reduce wait times that now stretch decades. The size of these visa programs can expand or contract based on economic need or by communities’ willingness to absorb newcomers. But what we see today—closing every legal door—only creates pent up demand for migration that will eventually fuel the next crisis.

Lawful pathways must be paired with enforcement that is swift and credible. Our asylum system must be reformed so that it can protect those with legitimate claims while discouraging abuse. The Safe Mobility Initiative and other upstream processing models showed that it is possible to redirect asylum claims away from the border itself. An efficient, well-resourced processing capacity and border infrastructure can ensure swift action on immigration cases.

Finally, the experience of recent years underscores the importance of a regional approach to stabilize and integrate migrants. When migration is viewed as a shared responsibility, it is not only manageable but can be leveraged to benefit regional economies.

In Congress, meanwhile, we see some signs that the status quo is wearing thin. Bills like the bipartisan Keep STEM Talent Act would ensure high-skilled international students can stay and work in the U.S. after graduating. And the bipartisan DIGNITY Act, which would create a pathway to legal status for many undocumented immigrants, now has 31 co-sponsors. Lawmakers understand that their constituents are dissatisfied with how immigration has been handled across multiple administrations—and recognize the economic and human costs of an enforcement-only approach.

The stakes are too high to give up hope that we can chart a better path forward on immigration. As we enter 2026, the choice is not between compassion and control. It is between policies that repeatedly manufacture crises and those that manage migration in an orderly, lawful, and sustainable way. To that end, our report looks back at what policies have worked, which have clearly failed, and what lessons we can learn for how to build a more orderly, lawful, and sustainable system going forward.

On Tuesday, January 13, Marcela Escobari also moderated a fireside chat with Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), who shared perspectives on immigration policy from Capitol Hill. Click to watch the Brookings event “Assessing US immigration policy in the second Trump administration.”