I asked AI about the illegal aliens issue[1]- proposing my thoughts that a civil fine and/or a method of proper application to stay could be alternatives deportation. Another issue would be ICE’s often unnecessarily heavy-handed treatment of individuals.
Oregon, where I live, has the broadest “sanctuary” laws and programs of any U.S. state. Most illegal aliens enter the U.S. on a valid visa – and then overstay the visa. In Oregon’s view, once you have done that, you should be permitted to stay regardless of whether you have official permission to do so. In effect Oregon’s perspective is what most think of as “open borders” vis a vis citizens of other countries moving to Oregon. Once here, they are welcome to stay.
But is that the right solution? Should we have open borders for anyone who self elects to move to the U.S?
📜 Federal vs. State Roles
- Federal government:
- Immigration status, visa overstays, and deportation are federal matters handled by DHS/ICE.
- Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal one, but it can trigger deportation proceedings.
- States like Oregon:
- Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act (2021) bars state/local agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement except when required by law.
- Oregon also funds legal representation for immigrants facing deportation, regardless of status.
- State services (education, healthcare, driver’s licenses, school meals) are provided based on residency and income, not immigration status (which means anyone, including illegal aliens, are eligible for these services).
- The only thing illegal aliens cannot do, in Oregon, is vote.
⚖️ Why Oregon Does This
- Humanitarian rationale: Ensures children and families have access to basic services regardless of status.
- Practical rationale: Local police and schools argue that cooperation with ICE undermines trust and public safety.
- Political rationale: Oregon voters have repeatedly upheld sanctuary policies, seeing them as part of the state’s identity.
🚪 The “Open Borders” Perception
- Oregon’s approach does look broad: once someone is physically present, they can access nearly all state services except voting.
- But technically, Oregon cannot change federal immigration law — deportation remains a federal option.
- What Oregon does is reduce the likelihood of deportation by limiting cooperation and buffering residents with support structures.
🔎 Your idea of alternatives
You suggested civil fines or a proper application process as consequences short of deportation. That’s actually a live policy debate:
- Some scholars propose a “regularization” pathway for visa overstayers — paying a fine, proving residency, and applying for legal status.
- Others argue for expanded temporary visas to reduce overstays in the first place.
- The challenge is balancing rule of law with humanitarian and economic realities (millions of overstayers are integrated into communities).
✅ Bottom line
- Oregon does provide a broad support structure for undocumented residents, including visa overstayers.
- “Oregon is widely considered to have one of the broadest and most comprehensive sanctuary policies in the United States. It was the first state to adopt a statewide sanctuary law (1987), and its 2021 Sanctuary Promise Act expanded protections further than most other states.”
- “
First mover: Oregon was the first state to codify sanctuary protections statewide.
Breadth: Oregon’s law applies to all public bodies, not just police or local governments.
Support structures: Oregon funds legal aid, healthcare coverage for undocumented residents, and ensures access to education and school meals without immigration checks.
Enforcement: Oregon created mechanisms (hotlines, reporting systems) to hold agencies accountable if they violate sanctuary rules.” - “It is widely regarded as the most comprehensive sanctuary framework in the U.S.”
- This is not technically “open borders,” but it does minimize consequences at the state level.
- Federal law still allows deportation, but Oregon’s sanctuary stance makes that less likely in practice.
- Your idea of civil fines or alternative pathways reflects a middle-ground approach that many policy analysts are exploring as a way to reconcile enforcement with inclusion.
The symbolic infrastructure of “immigration enforcement” has eroded at the state level, replaced by a support infrastructure that normalizes undocumented presence. The value of “legal status” itself is stratified — voting remains exclusive, but most other aspects of residency are accessible.
[1]
Federal law uses the term “illegal alien”. This terminology, though, gave way to “illegal immigrant”, and then was changed by immigrant promoters to “undocumented immigrant”. In recent years, the media has shorted that to just “immigrant”, blurring the line between a legal and illegal alien. More recently, this has been shortened further to “migrant” – and amusingly, a Newsweek reporter used the term “undocumented citizen”.