The foreign-ness of immigration policy stems from what is causing immigrants to move in the first place. No person moves from their country, family, culture, religion, and language without reason. Migration is driven by two central forces: push factors that compel people to leave home and pull factors that attract them to another place. Applying this model, the U.S. is attractive because of our safety, education, and economy. These factors pull, whereas conflict, weak economies, and corrupt governments push. Our designation of immigration policy as a domestic issue takes the foreign push factors causing immigration out of the picture completely when it should be our primary focus. 

Certainly, the largely domestic approach of the Trump administration shows impressive results. For the first time in over 50 years, the immigration population is declining, with unauthorized border crossing falling to pre-1960s levels. However, on a global scale, the factors pushing immigration have not declined. Population growth, climate change, political instability, and economic inequality will continue increasing migration pressures regardless of who is in office. Domestic enforcement may reduce crossings temporarily, but it cannot reverse these global trends.

Treating immigration primarily as a domestic security issue has another consequence: it requires an ever-expanding enforcement bureaucracy. Such elevated amounts of funding to the DHS is unsustainable. Funding for the department has already sent the government into shutdown three times in recent history. The DHS requested $115.6 billion for fiscal year 2026 and $118.4 billion for fiscal year 2027. Add on additional funding through bills and the number is enormous. In a time where nearly every other department is looking to cut spending, the cost of funding the DHS is not only out of touch but also polarizing. 

Since enforcement alone cannot resolve the issue of immigration, what can? The answer is not simply more foreign aid, but better foreign aid. Despite many negative attitudes towards aid, this tool of foreign relations can still be very valuable when used correctly. As Dambisa Moyo articulated in Dead Aid, traditional kinds of government-government or government-third party monetary aid have been seen to only perpetuate poverty and corruption by increasing reliance on aid rather than building sustainable institutions. Intellectual aid, on the other hand, does not foster dependence but instead gives countries access to the resources they need to develop. Intellectual aid does not need to be costly – government experts who can contribute to the writing of legislation are comparatively cheap and exponentially beneficial to strengthening democracy in illiberal democracies. 

This logic similarly applies for arguments against shutting down USAID. The agency, dismantled mainly for wasteful spending, spent its aid dollars mostly investing in forms of dead aid. The agency can reduce its spending while still producing substantial results by investing more in intellectual aid, which would also reduce third party actors and therefore increase oversight and reduce mismanagement.

The US should provide assistance in writing the economic policies of developing countries, invest in sustainable infrastructure like rail and road, share technological advancements and expertise, and support battles against corruption – not only to uplift the citizens of those countries, but because the uplifting of them directly benefits US citizens. Immigration diplomacy might take time for results to start showing, but the alternative is scary, divisive, and unsustainable. Borders can slow migration. They cannot eliminate the reasons people leave home. Until American immigration policy addresses those reasons, the crisis at the border will remain as a byproduct of injustice and systematic issues in the world. 

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Adwaya Yesare for editing this policy brief.

References

Aleaziz, Hamed, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs. “Border Crossings Reach Historic Low Under Trump Administration.” New York Times, July 2, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/us/politics/border-crossings-trump.html

Brown, Nick M. Foreign Assistance: Where Does the Money Go? CRS Report No. R48150. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, August 8, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48150 

Bryzgalov, Artem. Brown Concrete Building During Nighttime. Photograph. Published July 13, 2020. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-concrete-building-during-nighttime-LDcj6VrO80M

Kramer, Stephanie, and Jeffrey S. Passel. “What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 21 Aug. 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Fiscal Year 2026 Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 3, 2025. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025_07_03_ocfo_fy-2026-budget-in-brief.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Fiscal Year 2027 Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 3, 2026. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/26_0403_ocfo_fy27-budget-dhs-budget-in-brief.pdf