And that outcome seems on course, whether the desire is for a pathway to citizenship, legalisation or family re-unification.
With hundreds of thousands of Bajans, Jamaicans, Haitians and other West Indians living as illegal immigrants in the United States, what the three presidential candidates are pledging are of more than passing interest.
But what can Bajans expect?
At different times and in different ways the Democratic and Republican candidates, United States Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have endorsed the main planks of the immigration advocates' reform agenda.
"Give 12 million people who are here illegally . . . many of whom have United States citizens for children a pathway to legalisation," said Obama when he spoke out for legalisation.
"(Deporting all illegal immigrants) is absolutely unrealistic, and it's not in keeping with American values," said Clinton.
For her part, the former first lady backs a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal residency, provided they pay a penalty and don't have a criminal record.
On the Republican side of the political aisle, McCain, a principal co-sponsor of the immigration reform measure which failed last year in Congress, has engaged in a political dance with conservatives. For instance, he said if Congress approved a measure to legalise many of the illegal immigrants in the country, he would sign the measure.
But within days he backtracked, insisting outright that he wouldn't approve it as the nation's chief executive.
"Make them earn citizenship because they have broken our laws," said McCain.
As for the guest-worker plan which would open immigration to Bajans and others from around the world, while Obama backs it and McCain co-sponsored a bill that included it, Clinton, who once supported that same measure, is against it, warning it would depress United States wages.
"It is easier sometimes to employ people who are immigrants and really take advantage of them," said the senator.
On the other hand, Obama argues that "illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they compete" but thinks a guest-plan with a data base would improve both wages and conditions for everybody.
McCain takes a somewhat similar position arguing, "we need workers in this country" because "there are certain jobs that Americans are simply not interested in".
The tricky part is that all three candidates are shifting on the issue of border security versus entry into the country.
Take the case of Clinton. She backed the 2006 Secure Fence Act that gave the green light to the installation of a 900-mile long fence along the United States/Mexican border. However, she has since lambasted the way the fence is supposed to work.
Obama went along with Clinton on the fence by voting for it, but in a move to woo Hispanic, mostly Mexican voters in the United States, he has soft-pedalled his backing of it, especially when he is speaking to people in states and border communities with large numbers of immigrant voters.
McCain is difficult to pin down. After campaigning for years on the theme that the United States was "still the land of opportunity", he switched gears by de-emphasising entry while making the case for tight security in order to please conservatives in the Republican Party.
What seems clear is that under a Democratic president, immigrants in the country would get a better deal. Given McCain's record on immigration reform, once elected he can be expected to endorse or propose a plan that would allow people in the country to remain.