It is likely because about 25% of the country would not like a more liberal immigration policy.

There are merits to immigration but the politics around this has become toxic.

I do not know how the US gets back on this horse without having bipartisan legislation.

Such legislation looks pretty hard to be supported by a majority of the republic party’s primary voters. So, the question is what gives.

Any one sided policy moves on this by the Democratic Party would likely face risk to be reversed.

This is the case for essentially all US federal governance at this point. Something’s going to have to give; we will either plummet into fascism as 45% of the country seems to want or we will somehow back down from the precipice through some yet unforeseen series of events.

Totally off topic, but I don't think the events will be "unforeseen". There are so many plausible predictions of what the future will hold, it's unlikely we will be surprised. At least, science fiction readers won't be surprised. My personal bet is that Star Trek has the closest thing to accurate future-history. We go through some really bad times, then master fusion technology and suddenly there is enough of everything to go around. Clearly we have a lot of growing to do before being in a post-scarcity world means that everyone is well cared for. Fingers crossed.

> It is likely because about 25% of the country would not like a more liberal immigration policy.

The blame isn’t just with the “build the wall” crowd, the majority of the other 75% of Americans do not place fixing immigration as a top priority, and immigrants are not voters in the short to medium term so they‘re not benefiting anyone in the next election.

Also, immigrants aren't particularly likely to vote for you just because you let them in, nor do they even like other immigrants themselves so they're not going to vote for them either. That's how powerful American cultural imperialism is; we make them American as soon as they get here.

The politics of immigration have always been toxic, see the quota system, or Archie Bunker, or 'Irish need not apply'. I think that reframing immigration as probably our biggest strategic asset historically might have some potential. If Jewish physicists had stayed in Europe, would we have nuclear supremacy? If Chinese laborers hadn't gone to California, would we have the Transcontinental railroad? Where would NASA be without the stolen German engineers?

The Democrats talk about it like it's charity and the humane thing to do, and the Republicans come back with 'first we have to take care of our own'. HN seems to understand this, but it isn't what makes the news.