President Trump has encouraged Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to work with Democrats interested in immigration reform. Mullin has raised the possibility that Congress could create a path to permanent legal status for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA. He also said that he and the President had yet to discuss changes to immigration enforcement and that the administration remains opposed to what it calls amnesty.

That leaves two questions worth asking. Is this an opening for meaningful immigration reform? And is the administration willing to reconsider how it enforces immigration law while those talks take place?

What would a permanent solution mean for Dreamers?

For someone who came to the United States as a child and has spent most of their life here, the difference between deferred action and permanent residence is substantial. DACA temporarily defers removal and allows recipients to apply for work authorization. DACA itself grants neither lawful immigration status nor a path to a green card.

Congress could change that by creating a process for eligible individuals to apply for permanent residence. The details would matter. Would eligibility be limited to current DACA recipients, or would it also extend to people who came here as children and never received DACA? What would applicants have to prove, and what protections would they have while their applications were pending? Those are the questions that will determine how much any proposal accomplishes.

Will the administration reconsider its enforcement practices?

There is common ground on securing the border and prioritizing the removal of people convicted of violent felonies. The harder question is how the administration will exercise its enforcement authority in cases involving longtime residents with deep family and community ties and no history of violent crime.

Congress can create a path to permanent residence. The administration, within the limits of existing law, can decide how to prioritize enforcement today. Both decisions matter to families who live with the consequences of those policies while Congress debates what comes next.

What should we watch for now?

The first sign of progress would be bipartisan legislative text that spells out who qualifies and what status they could obtain. On enforcement, the clearest sign would be written guidance explaining whether priorities have changed and how officers should apply them.

For now, the discussion itself leaves existing immigration obligations in place. Anyone with a renewal deadline or an immigration court date should continue to treat it as binding. For Dreamers who have spent years planning their lives around temporary protections, the question is whether lawmakers can turn this opening into a law that lets them plan for the future.