But the move to reject enforcement entirely-even in theory-only fuels louder calls for maximum enforcement, which then strengthen calls for abolition, ad infinitum. 8 Certainly, enforcement reforms are necessary, as the following sections of this report explain. The inadequacies of the former, and the abject cruelty of the latter, have contributed to a growing sense among some policymakers, as well as many in the pro-immigrant advocacy community, that the entire enforcement apparatus must be unwound. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan said. Next, it illustrates that under this broken system, immigration policy has fluctuated between two poles: on the one hand, relying increasingly upon administrative discretion alone to save the system from itself, and on the other, relying on maximum enforcement of “the laws on the books without apology,” as former U.S. The report then outlines the emergence over a period of years of the extralegal immigration system that exists today. The report begins by laying out what the rule of law is, how it has been distorted by opponents of immigration, and the degree to which the current immigration system makes a mockery of American history and ideals-of an America that is both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Additionally, it makes the case for why immigration proponents can and should reclaim the rule of law narrative frame from immigration restrictionists who frequently misappropriate the term to drive law and order policies that demonize immigrant communities and communities of color and only worsen the dysfunctionality and cruelty of the current system. This report sets out a framework for immigration policymaking that brings together the two visions of America, with the goal of building a fair, humane, and well-functioning immigration system in which the rule of law is restored. immigration system can, and must, recognize both the need for movement and the need for defined borders it must have clear guidelines but also clear guardrails and it must live up to the best of the nation’s past while working for its present and future. Indeed, it is precisely because these two visions of the country are intertwined that America cannot be a nation of laws if those laws are antithetical to its history and ideals as a nation of immigrants. Get weekly insights on progressive policy. Constitution, America’s founding document. Debates over a liberal immigration policy actually predate the start of the nation itself they infused the drafting of the U.S. 5 The fundamental problem with this debate is that America is, and has always been, both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. 4 By doing this, however, rather than challenging the dichotomy itself, supporters have ceded powerful rhetorical ground to immigration restrictionists, who are happy to masquerade as the sole defenders of America as a nation of laws. 2 Presented with this choice, 3 supporters of immigration-people who recognize the value that immigrants bring to American society, its culture, and its economy, as well as the important role that immigrants play in the nation’s continued prosperity-have traditionally seized the mantle of defending America as a nation of immigrants. For too many years, the conversation has been predicated on a false dichotomy that says America can either honor its history and traditions as a nation of immigrants 1 or live up to its ideals as a nation of laws by enforcing the current immigration system. The immigration debate in America today is nearly as broken as the country’s immigration system itself. For more information and updates on this topic, see CAP’s series: “ Reframing the Immigration Debate.” Introduction and summary