Democrats still need an immigration plan. This could help.

For much of the past year, condemning President Donald Trump’s militarized mass deportation campaign has been a unifying priority for Democrats and their allies at immigration advocacy groups. Now, with both parties starting to look beyond Trump, Democrats and the groups are starting to formulate their own competing vision for immigration policy. Many acknowledge that after President Joe Biden’s approach lost the country’s confidence, Democrats face an urgent need to prove their commitment to securing the border and combating illegal immigration.

The latest evidence is a policy statement the American Immigration Lawyers Association is releasing today. The 18,000-member AILA is in effect the defense bar for legal and undocumented immigrants. As such, it has always championed policies that provide the broadest pathways for immigrants in both categories to legally work and live in the US.

That inclination still infuses the statement, which I exclusively obtained ahead of its release. The plan contains multiple provisions for defanging Trump’s mass deportation drive, including moving control of immigration judges from the executive branch to Congress, and establishing an independent oversight body to monitor federal immigration enforcement. The lawyers also call for codifying a series of sensible reforms in how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operates, including requiring agents to wear identification and obtain warrants.

But, more surprisingly, the document proposes a key step to achieve greater control of the border.

The principal reason for the chaos at the border under former President Joe Biden was the surge in migrants arriving to file asylum claims. Under Biden, as during previous administrations, people filing such claims were usually released into the U.S. while their cases worked through the backlogged immigration court system — a process that can take years.

U.S. immigration law provides asylum only to immigrants who can demonstrate fear of persecution if they return to their home country. But the backlog meant people who came primarily for economic opportunity knew they could live and work in the U.S. for years, even if they ultimately lost their case. Asylum seekers awaiting resolution of their claims were a key driver in the unprecedented 3.5 million rise in the unauthorized population from 2021—2023 that overwhelmed cities and undermined support for Biden’s immigration policies. (There is no universally accepted definition of undocumented or unauthorized, but people waiting for resolution of their asylum claims are typically included in the counts.)

Trump’s response was a January 2025 executive order suspending the asylum program at the southern border. But such a blanket cutoff probably is not legal, as a federal appellate court ruled in April. And even if the deferential Supreme Court majority eventually upholds Trump’s action, banning asylum seekers is unpopular with the public, a fundamental violation of American traditions and a political nonstarter for any future Democratic president.

The immigration lawyers propose a middle way: empowering asylum case officers to decide most cases, rather than routinely referring cases to immigration judges. That change — coupled with hiring more case officers and streamlining the guidelines for assessing applicants — would allow claims to be decided in weeks or months, not years, the lawyers say, and reduce the incentive to seek asylum without a strong case.

The statement also responds in other ways to concerns about uncontrolled immigration. It narrows (but does not abandon) previous Democratic calls to provide citizenship to undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. and acknowledges that legal immigration visas should be reduced during periods of high unemployment.

Angela Kelley, a former Department of Homeland Security official under Biden and now an AILA senior adviser, says the statement reflects the public’s desire for "a balance of control and compassion" in immigration policy. "We have had a high degree of chaos, whether it’s been Biden or Trump in the White House," she said. "That’s what the public rejects."

The fact that the lawyers representing immigrants would tilt at all toward control is telling. But many signs suggest a critical mass of elected Democrats would move further.

The AILA statement, for instance, does not propose to change the law under which asylum seekers are released into the U.S. while their cases are decided. But 20 House Democrats have cosponsored the bipartisan Dignity Act, which would require that all asylum cases are resolved in 60 days — and mandate that applicants remain in "humanitarian centers" while they are decided. Likewise, the bipartisan 2024 Senate border security bill that virtually every Democrat supported also included several tough enforcement measures that go beyond the lawyers’ statement. Even more fundamentally, the Dignity Act provides long-term undocumented residents with a path only toward legal status, not citizenship — previously the immutable goal of Democrats and advocates alike.

The backlash against Trump’s deportation drive has revived calls among some Democratic progressives to "abolish ICE" — an echo of the party’s disastrous lurch left on immigration early in the 2020 presidential primaries. But more Democrats appear focused on addressing the public discontent over Biden’s immigration record, which likely contributed more to Trump’s reelection than anything except inflation.

"This is not 2019—2020," says Frank Sharry, the founder of left-leaning immigration advocacy organization America’s Voice and a fellow at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. "This is a much more sober Democratic Party that realizes immigration was a loser in 2024, and they have to figure out how to get it right with the American people."

The immigration lawyers’ statement doesn’t pinpoint Democrats’ final destination on that journey. But it leaves no doubt about their direction.

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Ronald Brownstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He is a CNN analyst and the author or editor of seven books.