U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled openness to immigration reforms. A January pro-immigrant rally in Annapolis, Md., is pictured.

Hours before a Feb. 28 speech to a joint session of Congress, U.S. President Donald Trump signaled openness during a luncheon with journalists to address legal status for immigrants who are in the United States illegally. What are the chances for immigration reform legislation to win approval this year in Congress? What political pressures will influence whether such a reform occurs? With Republicans in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, what elements might comprise such a reform?

Louis DeSipio, associate professor of political science and chair of Chicano/Latino studies at the University of California Irvine: "President Trump’s recently announced willingness to support comprehensive immigration reform legislation that includes a path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants who have not committed serious crimes comes as a shock. Trump premised his candidacy on antipathy to immigrants and serious concerns about their potential to contribute to American society. Announcing his candidacy, he focused on Mexican immigrants whom he identified as drug smugglers, criminals and rapists. As an afterthought, he acknowledged that ‘some, I assume, are good people.’ His cabinet includes Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has long opposed comprehensive immigration reform and has proposed reductions to legal immigration. With this history in mind, the seriousness of President Trump’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform must be questioned. Should President Trump pursue comprehensive immigration reform, he would not be able to count on the support of the majority of Republicans in Congress and would need to pass legislation based largely on the votes of Democrats. This is a legislative strategy that Republican congressional leaders have resisted. Republicans, particularly Republicans in the House, have blocked debate on comprehensive immigration legislation since 2006. It is unlikely that strong leadership from President Trump could sway many congressional Republicans. Classic nativism on the part of many members certainly explains some of the Republican opposition, but for many, this antipathy to immigrants is reinforced by fears of facing single-issue anti-immigration reform challengers in Republican primaries. President Trump’s reported empathy toward unauthorized immigrants, if real, will be unlikely to end the congressional deadlock on immigration reform."

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in Washington: "For bipartisan immigration reform to pass in this Congress, we need compromise on both sides of the aisle. The debate is now polarized. The Democrats’ public positions today—reflexively hostile to immigration enforcement—are unrecognizable from those of the 20th Century. It’s base has changed. The Republican Party hasn’t changed: A split between its base and Wall Street means tension between border security and cheaper labor. Nevertheless, President Trump made big promises to the base during the campaign. He has a mandate to transcend this intra-party divide. His willingness to informally float out a compromise notion on legalization (or amnesty) for Democrats reflects both his political strength and his negotiating prowess. He has held back on enforcing laws against the so-called ‘Dreamers’ to provide Democrats an incentive to come to the negotiating table. Results so far? The cold shoulder from the opposition party. Democrats have two choices. Continue using the immigration issue to cynically produce imagined loyalty from Hispanic voters, or actually move back to the center and support responsible immigration law enforcement. All the evidence is that a party led by Senator Chuck Schumer sees no advantage in meeting Trump in the middle. Game over. Any immigration bills that do pass—and we could even see an omnibus Trump-sponsored package, would have to pass with only a handful of Democratic votes. It would vindicate many of Trump’s campaign promises and focus on enforcement and limiting unskilled immigration."

Karen A. Woodrow-Lafield, research professor and faculty associate at the Maryland Population Research Center at the University of Maryland, College Park: "The most recent effort at comprehensive immigration reform was by a bipartisan group of senators with Senate passage of the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. That bill spelled out alternative pathways to legal status based on length of unauthorized residence and other criteria, and increased border patrol agents, plus many other proposals. Under S. 744, the likely fiscal impact of those additional workers paying taxes would have been positive for financing Social Security programs and could have reduced the federal budget deficit. The House counterpart, H.R. 15, stalled without a vote. Meanwhile, unauthorized migration from Mexico was diminishing, and most unauthorized residents are now believed to have lived here for at least five to 10 years. The popular vote in the presidential election was for Hillary Clinton, who supported comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to full and equal citizenship. The current administration’s emphasis is on increasing deportations, building walls and supporting trade protectionism. For long-overdue immigration reform, this Congress should build upon the work of the 113th Congress. Drawing from National Academy of Sciences studies to assess the integration of immigrants (2015) and the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration (2016) and the Georgetown Institute for the Study of International Migration’s Immigration Policy and Reform Project (2013-2015), policymaking can be evidence-based and move forward with bipartisan leadership. Certain urban states supported Clinton and comprehensive immigration reform, having enacted sanctuary or inclusionary policies, and are likely to be adversely affected by the social and economic fallout of heightened enforcement, specifically in California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Stories abound of detained individuals who were living as active members of communities, in families with U.S.-born children, in marriages to naturalized and U.S.-born citizens, and as productive workers in businesses. Fearful parents are arranging guardianship. In the Central Valley of California, farm managers are concerned about a diminished agricultural workforce. Priority should be given to unifying across states and valuing U.S. relations with neighbors and trading partners in North America."

The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue's Corporate Program and others by subscription.