State governments across the U.S. are exploring legal pathways to take on more influence over immigration policy in response to moves by the Trump administration toward mass deportations. Immigration scholars and advocates say the current federal system is outdated, prompting state legislatures—both red and blue—to introduce bills that give states greater authority over immigration enforcement, foreign worker recruitment, and collaboration with federal agencies.
Some bills aim to authorize states to recruit foreign labor directly or offer visas for skilled workers tied to specific local economies. Others propose expanding local enforcement agreements with ICE and empowering state law enforcement to carry out immigration duties under federal programs. Proposals also include strengthening protections for immigrants, giving states better tools to certify identities, and creating state‑run programs aligned with federal priorities.
Experts like Michele Waslin of the University of Minnesota’s Immigration History Research Center observe a growing bipartisan trend: states perceiving the federal immigration system as failing in job market needs, public safety, and economic growth. Waslin notes that while many state efforts face resistance from federal authorities—often over questions of constitutionality or enforcement—they reflect a shift toward more domestic control.
Jordan Fischetti, an immigration fellow, contends that state initiatives can complement federal roles by focusing on visa allocations, ensuring communities have input, and tailoring immigrant integration according to state needs. He points to recent proposals like the Heartland Visa concept, which would allocate visas for regions with low population growth, as examples of how states want more say in immigration policy.
As Congress debates federal immigration reform, state legislators may lay the groundwork for scalable models that redistribute immigration functions. Whether these measures strengthen federal‑state cooperation or spark legal battles over authority remains to be seen—but the push reflects frustration with Washington’s current approach and a desire for states to reclaim influence.
