6-22-2024
An Updated Historical Overview of US Immigration Policy
https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy
Immigration has played an important role in American history, and the United States continues to have the most open immigration policy in the world. Before the era of rapid communications and transportation, America encouraged relatively open immigration to settle its empty lands. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared the regulation of immigration a federal responsibility. The Immigration Service was established in 1891 to deal with the big increase in immigration which started in 1880.
From 1900 to 1920, nearly 24 million immigrants arrived during what is known as the “Great Wave”. The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war’s conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.
There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent.
In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. This change to national policy responded to changes in the sources of immigration since 1924. The majority of applicants for immigration visas now came from Asia and Latin America rather than Europe. The preference system continued to limit the number of immigration visas available each year, however, and Congress still responded to refugees with special legislation. Not until the Refugee Act of 1980 did the United States have a general policy governing the admission of refugees.
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This legislation had two major facets: amnesty and enforcement. IRCA provided amnesty to aliens who had completed one of two stipulations: they had resided continually in the U.S. since January 1982 or they had completed 90 days of agricultural work between May 1985 and May 1986. The acceptance rate for amnesty applications was about 94 percent, eventually giving legal status to approximately 3 million. It is estimated that one-fourth of the cases accepted were fraudulent. In 2000, IRCA was extended through Late Amnesty, which allowed those fighting their original denial to reapply. As of June 2007, 15,000 Late Amnesty cases are still pending from IRCA. The 1986 legislation also contained enforcement provisions to prevent future illegal entry. The provisions prohibited the hiring and harboring of illegal aliens, but few resources were allocated to enforce these laws. Poor funding essentially tied the hands of enforcement officials. This created a lopsided ‘grand compromise’ that fueled later generations of illegal aliens.
In 1990, Congress again reformed immigration statutes. The 1990 Immigration Act modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented” countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow by creating a lottery system. The 1990 Act also mandated a study of immigration, later known as the Jordan Commission.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, named after its Chairwoman, former Rep. Barbra Jordan, ran from 1990 to 1997. The Commission covered many facets of immigration policy, but started from the perception that the “credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.” From there, in a series of four reports, the commission looked at all aspects of immigration policy. In the first, it found that enforcement was lax and needed improvement on the border and internally. For internal enforcement, it recommended that an automated employment verification system be created to enable workers to distinguish between legal and illegal workers. The second report discussed legal immigration issues and suggested that immediate family members and skilled workers receive priority. The third report covered refugee and asylum issues. Finally, the fourth report reiterated the major points of the previous reports and the need for a new immigration policy. Few of these suggestions were implemented.
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The act added to border controls by mandating the hiring of more Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service agents. Repercussions for entering the country illegally were increased and a border fence was planned for San Diego. An automated employment verification pilot program was created in the hopes of easing worksite enforcement. The Act also allowed state police officers to enforce immigration law using the 287(g) program. Although the IIRIRA boosted de jure enforcement, poor funding again hindered the actual enforcement of the laws.
Also during the 1990s, a series of four smaller amnesties were passed. The first, the Section 245(i) amnesty, was passed in 1994 and pardoned approximately 578,000 illegal aliens, who were each fined $1,000. This amnesty was later renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. The second, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), was passed in 1997 and gave legal status to approximately one million illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, who had lived in the U.S. since 1995.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) strengthened U.S. immigration laws, adding penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes while in the United States or who stay in the U.S. for statutorily defined periods of time.
The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers. The Act also allows for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit a misdemeanor or a felony.
The Act mandates that immigrants who are unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days but those under 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless pardoned. If they remain in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. However, if they return to the U.S. without the pardon, they must wait 10 years until they may apply for a waiver.
In 1998, the Haitian Refugee Immigration and Fairness Act (HRIFA) passed after it was argued that excluding Haitians from NACARA was discriminatory. The most recent amnesty, passed in 2000, was the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE). The LIFE Act was a mini-amnesty aimed at those illegal aliens who hoped to become green card holders through marriage, employment or other categories, but who were not anywhere near approval yet, due to the long line of people ahead of them. It was sold as a way around the growing processing backlogs that were the result of previous amnesties. During the time of this legislation, from 1994 to 2000, millions of hopeful legal immigrants waited in line overseas.
The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 affected perspectives on many issues, including immigration. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved, 19 of whom took part in the attack that caused 2,974 civilian deaths. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had violated the terms of their visas and become illegal aliens. The attack exposed long-standing holes in our immigration system that included failures at visa processing, internal enforcement, and information sharing.
In 2006 the issue of immigration reform was once again discussed in Congress, with the House of Representatives and the Senate producing their own, conflicting bills.
In December of 2005, the House passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, which was sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). The act was limited to enforcement and focused on both the border and the interior.
In the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA) was sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) and passed in May 2006. CIRA would have given amnesty to a majority of illegal aliens already in the country as well as dramatically increased legal immigration. Although the bills passed their respective chambers, no compromise bill emerged.
In 2007, the Senate again attempted to pass amnesty legislation. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have given amnesty to a large majority of illegal entrants in the country, significantly increased legal immigration and increased enforcement. The act, which had bipartisan support in the Senate, was widely unpopular with the American public. As the result of unprecedented public pressure, the bill failed to pass a cloture vote, essentially killing it.
In 2012 President Obama became tired of waiting on Congress and unconstitutionally used the power of Executive Order to create the Delayed Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to allow a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who are residing within the U.S. Congress neither condemned this action by the president, nor did they then attempt to fix the problems with the immigration system.
It is unconscionable that in 2017 the President of the United States would have to task the United States Congress to take appropriate action on immigration reform. Upon taking office, one of the first acts President Trump undertook was to invite Congress to meet with him and to discuss Immigration and other matters. He said that Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) had been unconstitutional and needed to be fixed through proper legislation. He also said what was needed was Comprehensive Immigration Reform to plug some loopholes and enhance enforcement efforts with computer software and funding for a border wall.
What happened after than historic meeting? Nothing, well not exactly nothing, but complete and utter resistance by Congressional Democrats and Republicans. Instead of going back to the Capitol and getting to work the resistance movement began in earnest. When the President said he would not extend DACA upon its natural expiration, legal actions began to force the President to extend an unconstitutional Obama executive order.
President Trump’s determination to have the Immigration Issue corrected not by executive order but as it should be done by Congress. He was determined to begin construction of a proper wall to prevent unlawful crossings, drugs and human trafficking as it is the responsibility of the Government of the United States to ensure the safety and security of the American people, lawful residents and international visitors and to prevent unlawful entry.
In 2018 and President Trump decided to secure the U.S. southern border by building a physical barrier wall and enforce immigration laws to prevent unlawful entry and conduct deportation hearings to remove illegal immigrants which played out in the media are vocal opposition to immigration enforcement by the very politicians who have had the power to correct through immigration reform and are instrumental in creating the situation along our southern border.
The introduction in 2018 of “Emergency Legislation” as proposed by Senator Ted Cruz that casts a glimmer of hope for immigrant families. – Double the number of Federal Immigration Judges from 375 to 750; Authorize new temporary shelters, with accommodations to keep families together; Mandate illegal immigrant families “Must Be Kept Together”, absent aggravated criminal conduct or harm to the children; & Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases, so that – within 14 days – those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum, and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.
It is by the authority of the Constitution of the United States that the President of the United States may determine whether or not to restrict or refuse entry of any/or all immigrants.
Coming to America can be a frightening experience. One clings to native customs and traditions and family becomes the only thing one can hang on to. However it doesn’t have to take long before one becomes immersed into a normal lifestyle of America, while holding on to and passing a rich heritage to children and once someone becomes a US Citizen they are no longer an immigrant, nor are they a hyphenated-American. The greatest responsibility one takes on as a US Citizen is to pledge allegiance to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, so help us God.
American’s have a hard time understanding the fact that it is the government’s primary responsibility for the safety and welfare of its citizens and we have lost sight of that in the United States. Maintaining a well-armed and well trained military can insure that foreign agents do not attempt to attack our country. Controlling and regulating immigration is necessary to insure that individuals entering the country are not set on doing harm, causing damage, bringing sickness or disease or willfully violating our laws.
We have been told that government is the answer to the problems we face. We have elected officials who have knowingly and willfully violated our laws in order to control the citizens and insure they maintain the power they have accumulated while in office. Power to a politician is like water to a thirsty man or food to a starving man – there is never enough. Empty promises are one of the ways politicians use to maintain their political power.
A nation without secure borders does not remain sovereign for long. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Refugees flee political or religious oppression don’t demand admission, but ASK for asylum in the hope that they will be admitted. Don’t confuse the two.
When an organized assembly of people from a host of different countries force their way into another country it is called an invasion. When armed force is used it has become an armed invasion. When a nation allows an invading force into their border they are no longer keeping the welfare and safety of their citizens. When it is perceived that the leader of a nation has openly invited without question foreigners with promises of free stuff they have in effect violated their oath of office and must be held accountable for their actions.
In 2021 President Biden encouraged migrants without documentation to come to the United States for free medical, education and even promised free stimulus checks which has caused a renewed crisis on our Southern border with Mexico. The Mexican President pleaded with the American President about how it is difficult to regulate the flow of foreigners through Mexico and into the United States.
Under Biden construction on the border wall was terminated leaving unmanned entry points allowing unlimited illegal migrants into the country, bringing sickness and disease as well as human and drug trafficking. Manned entry points with overflow facilities have released millions of illegal migrants into the country.
Although it is true that Immigration is a responsibility of the Executive Branch, the Biden Legislative Branch must abide by the Biden Immigration Policy which sets a dangerous precedence and places the entire nation at risk and with this open border situation along the Southern Border. How is it justified to continue border security at international airports or manned entry points along any of the US border while leaving the U.S. Southern Border wide open? – RTM
The Real Truckmaster 