In an earlier post, I discussed immigration history in the 1800s and early 1900s. In this post, I would like to discuss the most recent wave of immigrants, specifically those who came after 1965. As I stated in the previous post, a National Origins quota system was put in place in 1924. These quotas were designed to maintain the current ethnic make up of the US population, keeping the balance in favor of northern Europeans and stemming the tide of immigrants from southern/eastern Europe and other parts of the world. This system was in place until 1965, and during this time period the rate of immigration decreased markedly. By 1960 only 5% of the US population was foreign born, compared to 15% of the population in 1910 and 12% of the total population in 2004 (US Census Bureau).
The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart Cellar Act) scrapped the national origin quotas, and replaced them with other methods for gaining entry/residence into the US. While less restrictive than the national origins system, it was more restrictive than very early immigration policies (pre 1870s).
What were the provisions of this new immigration policy? One of the key goals of this immigration policy was family reunification of immediate relatives–spouses, parents, and children. Families were given preference and were not subject to the new quotas that were set as were several other groups: “certain ministers of religion; certain former employees of the U.S. government abroad; certain persons who lost citizenship (e.g., by marriage or by service in foreign armed forces); and certain foreign medical graduates.” Immigration quotas were shifted from nations to hemispheres. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, this act
Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.
Additionally, those immigrants with “special skills” that were needed in the US were also given a preference. This would include people such as highly trained scientists, athletes, artists, and people who can fulfill high demand jobs (i.e. nursing). Finally, refugees were also granted slots (especially those from communist countries and the Middle East.).
There have been important subsequent immigration policies, including amnesty for undocumented immigrants; however, many of these policies are slight adjustments on the Hart Cellar Act. The Center for Immigration Studies highlights several post 1965 reforms in this list:
1976 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — Extended a version of the seven-category preference system previously applied to Eastern Hemisphere countries to all Western Hemisphere countries. Also imposed an annual ceiling of 20,000 immigrants from any one country in the Western Hemisphere.
1978 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — The two hemispheric ceilings were combined into a worldwide quota of 290,000. The U.S. now had a policy that, on paper, applied uniformly to the people of all countries.
1980 Refugee Act — Established a separate admissions policy for refugees, eliminating the previous geographical and ideological criteria, and defining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. It abolished the seventh preference category for refugees (see Details). It set a separate target for refugees at 50,000 and reduced the annual worldwide ceiling for immigrants to 270,000.
1981 Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — The 16-member commission was created by Congress to evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. The Commission’s recommendations were summed up as follows by its chairman, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: “We recommend closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration, opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal migration in the interests of this country, defining our immigration goals clearly and providing a structure to implement them effectively, and setting forth procedures which will lead to fair and efficient adjudication and administration of U.S. immigration laws.”
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — Tried to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.
1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) — 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.
In spite of these alterations, basic immigration policies still follow the 1965 Immigration Act’s basic guidelines. This policy change dramatically changed the US population. The rate of immigration dramatically increased, and many groups that had previously faced high level of discrimination, especially Asians, were now entering the US in much larger numbers. Many of the post 1965 Asian immigrants were recruited to the US specifically for their skills in fields such as medicine, a stark departure from the early Chinese immigrants who were working class/low wage laborers. Overall, the new immigrants come mostly from Latin American and Asia. Contemporary immigrants tend to be more highly educated than immigrants of previous generations because of the 1965 immigration preferences; however, there is still a noticeable immigrant working class (especially for Latin American immigrants). In fact, it is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.
What does the future of immigration policy hold? I don’t feel qualified to predict the future, but if we want to talk about meaningful immigration policies and reforms, we need to understand what the current policies are. The 1965 law set the basis for current policy, and thus, it is imperative to reference it in the immigration debates.
undocumented immigrants
A sympathetic euphemism for illegal aliens. Does “undocumented” include people who in fact actually do have documents like matricula consulars or expired visas, etc.? Why would people who have documents be described as “undocumented”?
In fact, it is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.
I bet it would also be fair to say that the working poor referred to above are disproportionately illegal aliens, and the upper middle class are disproportionately in the United States legally.
Rachel,
To understand the influx of Mexican nationals into the United States, we have to understand what has been happening economically/educationally in Mexico. In the 1980s and 1990s, several waves of immigrants came north looking for work. Not all these folks were poor. Many had a college education; though when they got here, they found that their coursework/degrees did not transfer into American universities. These hardworking people had to start all over and were glad to because as they say, “Here, you can do it!”
We need a Part III about the IMF and its debilitating effect on the Mexican economy and education system.
Psst, Rachel, your headline needs fixing – it’s spelled Primer.
What can I say? I’m an editor.
In looking at the information presented here, it seems to me that the intent of the law was to restrict the number of immigrants with minimal employment skills and increase the number of immigrants with higher skills.
One of the memes being tossed about in reply to “send ’em all back” is that our economy is too dependent on the current cohort of illegal aliens; that sending them all back to their countries of origin (yep, including the Poles and Irish, a number of whom live around Chicago) would disrupt our economy. What we need to have to make sense of this is just what the role is of illegal aliens’ labor in American society, what the U.S.’s need is for unskilled labor, and why that need cannot be met by it’s current citizenry.
A lot of jobs that tend to be done by illegal alien labor include things like landscaping, dishwashing, day labor, etc. What would be the effect on these jobs if the labor pool for them suddenly was cut?
Let’s take landscaping maintenance. Out here in the Chicago area, you see a lot of this being done at middle and upper class homes and on large tracts of corporate land. It seems to me that the residents of those homes or owners of those corporations would have to either a) let the leaves lie there or the grass grow until you can get around to it yourself (the method favored at the RonF manse), b) put an ad in the paper or a notice up in the local supermarket advertising to have it done at a rate much higher than you had to pay your average illegal alien, or c) hire a professional contractor who will charge you more because his or her labor pool is now smaller and they have to pay more to get people to do it.
It seems to me that none of these is a problem. In fact, letting the 20 or 50 acres around corporate HQ’s go more to a natural state is actually recommended by a lot of environmental organizations. It would also solve the goose shit problem. Canadian Geese used to all migrate with the seasons. Now they stay around Chicago all year because the corporations cut the grass around their retention ponds and the geese stick around. If they’d let the grass grow so that predators could hide in them and attack the geese (especially the goslings), the geese would stay on the move. So I’d say that in this case, there’s no harm to the economy in removing illegal alien labor from the labor pool.
That’s just an example. It’s probably flawed, but I’m posting it not to debate the landscaping issue back and forth, but to illustrate the need for an honest analysis of the question, “What will really happen if we remove illegal alien labor from the labor pool? What happens if some of these jobs just don’t get done, or if someone has to spend more to hire the labor to do them?”
What can be done to supply the need for unskilled and low-skilled labor with citizens of this country? Why isn’t that need being so met now? And if it turns out that we need to import that kind of labor into this country, then what’s the best way to make sure that such labor comes into this country in a legal, controlled fashion?
Remember that the purpose of immigration policy is to meet the needs of the United States, not those of the immigrants. What is the goal of immigration policy? What does the United States need that immigrants supply? The debate is often centered around employment skills and the immigrants’ contribution to our economy. Back in the beginning of this country we needed people in general and the market for unskilled labor was large, so there was no particular need for any immigration law. Also, the immigrants were all coming from cultures similar to those of the existing citizenry. But that’s changed. What do we need now?
What do we need now?
Well, perhaps this.
I’m one of those tiresome people who want the border controlled but who also see the point of at least some immigrant labor: it creates economic choices that wouldn’t be there without it.
LOL! Thanks, I had to look that up that up the last time too.
After many discussions with friends and family and watching the national debate I find it strange that many people get angry when corporations move manufacturing plants to 3rd world countries in order to get low wage workers with no benefits but then don’t consider the greater impact of importing the third world workers to US companies and dumping the rest of the cost of their cheap labor to the tax payers. These workers usually don’t pay enough taxes to offset the economic cost they impose.
Not only that but they can devastate wages in certain industries. Contraction jobs around here used to provide a decent living for their families. With the influx of illegal immigrants that will work for about 1/2 the price it is no longer the case. That’s great if you own the construction business or buying a new house, but not so great if you were a construction worker raising a family. Many of the same arguments that support this also support corporations moving plants to 3rd world countries for cheap labor so that we can import the widgets and get a cheaper price at Wal-Mart. But again, importing the labor can be much worse than importing the widget.
sti1es, there’s nothing unique about Mexico in the issue you cite. When I worked as a lab tech the tech working next to me was a Russian doctor who had the exact same experience. Professionals from all over the world have had this experience.
Robert, I have no problem with that as long as Chopi comes into this country legally. And if the low wage rate that she was paid was dependent on her being an illegal alien instead of a legal immigrant, then she was exploited to that degree and the system should be changed.
One thing I find amusing (well, in an ironic and detached way) is the fact that many of the middle- and upper-class people who don’t favor immigration controls have jobs and economic status that are largely protected from foreign competition by licensing and regulatory regimes. The Mexican doctor can’t come here and practice, but he can start a lawncare business. Mass immigration (versus targeted recruitement of elites) makes life better for rich people (cheaper lawncare) but worse for poor people (people who used to get $10 an hour to do lawncare). Then the doctor lectures the people who used to do his lawn about how immigrants help everybody, and he should stop being so racist.
Not to say those licensing and regulatory regimes may or may not be correct – maybe the Latvian nuclear engineer just really isn’t up to spec and couldn’t become so with a 6-week brushup. I lack the knowledge to say definitively. But in some professions at least, it seems unlikely that a foreign credential is particularly less valuable than an American one in terms of protecting the public safety, or whatever other excuse is being used to restrain trade. (Those credentials might be harder to verify – but I don’t see why, in an Internet age.)
Ya, you could bet that if we were inundated by millions of Mexican lawyers (somehow licensed to practice here in the US) working for a 1/4 of what an American lawyer would charge that suddenly it would be recognized as a problem that needed a quick solution by the political class. Barring that, the Dems want the votes and the Wall-street Repubs want the cheap labor.
Many of the post 1965 Asian immigrants were recruited to the US specifically for their skills in fields such as medicine, a stark departure from the early Chinese immigrants who were working class/low wage laborers…Contemporary immigrants tend to be more highly educated than immigrants of previous generations because of the 1965 immigration preferences…It is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.
The 1970s “brain drain” from Asia set up the Model Minority Myth. 70% of Asian Americans were not born here. So many Asian Americans are the educated, skilled Asians after the Hart Cellar Act. Of course many foreign-born Asians came before 1965 like my parents who came in the 1940s and 50s. Anyway, this set up the appearance of educated, successful Asian American and Model Minority Myth used to separate the struggles of minorities in the U.S.
To Robert’s point–has anyone else read Dean Baker’s The Conservative Nanny State. It’s mostly devoted to exactly that point; professional licensing keeps immigrants from competing in most well-paid jobs.
professional licensing keeps immigrants from competing in most well-paid jobs.
I took a look at the first few pages of the book that seemed to address this directly. Here’s some commentary:
If the United States were committed to free trade in high-paying professions, it would negotiate trade agreements that established international standards in these professions. These standards would be based on recognized health and quality standards, as is the case for consumer safety regulations on manufacturing goods under the WTO.
Which are sometimes found to be flouted. Consider the special your local news station just ran a few weeks ago about foreign toys that are found to break apart into small pieces your child can accidentally swallow, painted with toxic paint, etc. But, read on.
The U.S. standards could be higher than those in developing countries or other rich countries, if we chose, but they would be fully transparent. For example, there would be standardized tests for being licensed, which could be administered anywhere in the world.
Corruption is far more of a problem in other countries than here in the U.S.; I would not feel comfortable admitting doctors into practice in the U.S. who had not passed a licensing test here in the U.S. And what kind of test would foreign examiners give to ensure that the doctor was familiar with American slang/idiom?
The potential gains from this sort of free trade are enormous. Doctors in the United States earn an average of more than $180,000 a year. Their counterparts in Europe earn less than $80,000 a year.5 Doctors in the developing world earn considerably less. If enough doctors can be brought in from the developing world to bring doctors’ pay down to the European level, the savings to consumers would be $80 billion a year, about $700 per family per year.
What effect does the fact that many of these countries have socialized medicine have on these relative pay scales? What effect would “brain drain” have on these countries?
Corruption is far more of a problem in other countries than here in the U.S.; I would not feel comfortable admitting doctors into practice in the U.S. who had not passed a licensing test here in the U.S.
Some other countries, and doctors do need to pass a licensing test, to my understanding (nurses certainly do). There’s no test for slang/idiom for natives, either; we don’t require a doctor from a blue-blood New England family to show he understands L.A. street slang before he can take a job in Compton. Of course we want to be sure that foreign credentials meet up with U.S. standards, but it’s a mistake to assume that “foreign” = “inferior”. As Robert points out, it’s pretty ridiculous that people with highly-skilled qualifications are assumed stupid and incompetent just because their credentials are not American.
It’s not a question of assuming that a foreigner’s credentials are inferior, which is why I never said that. It’s a question of guaranteeing that they are.
That’s why we do, in fact, have licensing requirements for professionals. You pointed vaguely to ‘corruption in other countries’ as though the US had the world’s highest standards for same.
Right.
I sort-of agree (and think Dr Baker would as well) that there should be actually-enforced standards of professional competence for doctors.
But those standards should be set so it’s as easy as possible to determine what they are, ahead of time, and easy to demonstrate compliance with them. “You have to have at least 4 years of training in the US” is not a reasonable standard.