Former Reagan Official: We Need Humane Immigration Policies

Video Description

Linda Chavez once held the highest-ranking position of any woman in Ronald Reagan’s White House, serving as director of the Office of Public Liaison. But when she was nominated to be secretary of labor under George W. Bush, her candidacy unraveled when it emerged that she had been sheltering an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala in her home. She hadn’t broken any laws, but she hadn’t disclosed it during the vetting process, and in the charged climate surrounding immigration—even 25 years ago—it was a political liability. Chavez withdrew her nomination. She went on to found and chair a conservative think tank, the Center for Equal Opportunity, and has served on several major corporate boards. Throughout, she has resisted easy partisan labels—especially on immigration. Chavez reached out to me after hearing our recent episode with Lionel Shriver, whose latest novel imagines the consequences of an American family taking a migrant into their home—something Chavez has actually done. She offered thoughtful pushback on the episode, particularly on the topic of birthright citizenship, and I invited her on the show to continue the conversation. Chavez’s views on immigration are best described as middle of the road. She supports strong border enforcement and argues that the surge in illegal crossings during the Biden administration was a serious failure of policy. At the same time, she favors expanded legal immigration and argues that assimilation of immigrants into the U.S. is working better than many critics claim. She’s also sharply critical of President Donald Trump’s current approach, particularly what she sees as broad, indiscriminate deportation efforts. We discuss why she sees these policies as politically counterproductive and strategically misdirected, even as she credits the administration with significantly reducing illegal border crossings. And as the Supreme Court weighs Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, Chavez makes the case that—whatever one’s policy preferences—the constitutional question is far more settled than critics want to admit.