James Hollifield and the Limits of Immigration Control

On March 19, in a packed classroom, Professor Anthony Sparacino welcomed guest speaker James Hollifield to deliver a lecture. Hollifield, a member of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, also serves as the Ora Nixon Arnold Professor in International Political Economy and as director of the Tower Center at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

Hollifield mapped out a problem that had no easy answer. The United States relied on immigration to fuel its economy and sustain its global role, yet it also had to enforce borders, maintain order, and respond to public concerns about identity and security. These goals pulled in different directions.

This tension formed what he called the liberal paradox. A country that values open markets and individual rights will naturally attract migrants, but those same values make it harder to tightly control who comes and stays. Efforts to restrict movement can conflict with economic needs and legal protections, while openness can raise fears about stability and national cohesion.

Hollifield explained immigration as a balance among four pressures: security, which pushes for control; markets, which demand labor; rights, which protect individuals; and culture, which shapes how societies define belonging. No policy can fully satisfy all four, so governments are always making compromises.

The challenge becomes even more complex across different levels. Countries negotiate migration at the global level, set laws at the national level, and experience the effects locally in everyday life. Each level has its own priorities, and they often clash.

In the end, immigration control is not something a state can fully master. It is an ongoing process of adjustment, where competing goals must be managed rather than solved.