 |
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | June 2007 
Newly Revived Proposal is Huge Shift In U.S. Immigration Policy
 Deepti Hajela - Associated Press
The idealized view of immigration in America has long been symbolized by the famous words adorning the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
But in reality, things aren't always that simple.
The immigration reform proposal that was revived last week in Congress calls for penalties for those who overstay visas or re-enter the country illegally. Those looking to make their status permanent would have to pay several thousand dollars in fees. A point system for legal entry would reward education and the ability to speak English, but only considers family ties if other requirements are met first.
For a nation that prides itself on its immigrant history, where Ellis Island is a popular museum and Lady Liberty a national icon, the proposal represents a dramatic change.
If the proposal survives political challenges and makes it into law, the focus of U.S. immigration policies would shift, from an emphasis on family reunification to one of making citizens out of only those with the best chances of succeeding here. Others would be allowed to come in temporarily through guestworker jobs in industries like agriculture, but be required to leave and not put down roots.
What's going on? Is a country that has long viewed itself as a land of immigrants turning its back on them?
No, historians and other experts say. It's just the latest iteration in America's complicated relationship with its immigrants, going back to colonial times.
While the idealized viewpoint is that America loves immigrants, the historical reality has been quite different, with laws put in place at many points to limit who was allowed to come here.
"We've always had that dichotomy," said Michael Quinn, assistant professor of economics at Bentley College in Massachusetts. "There is this dichotomy between who we say we are and what we do."
What have we done, exactly? Well, in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, forbidding workers from that country from coming here. In 1924, in possibly the most restrictive immigration policy ever, immigration was forbidden from whole regions of the world, like Asia. People from European countries were allowed in, but at tiny amounts, and with strong preferences for those originating from the nations of northern Europe. That law remained in effect with some revisions until the 1965 law.
Even with all that, though, America has served as a huge draw for immigrants, so it's not as if our sense of ourselves as immigrant-friendly is without truth, said Aristide Zolberg, professor of political science at The New School.
"On balance, the United States has received a larger share of immigrants worldwide than anybody else," he said.
But Americans tend to feel best about immigrants when there aren't actually that many here, said Brian Gratton, history professor at Arizona State University.
"The immigrant mythology largely grew as a result of fewer and fewer immigrants," he said. "It really became common after the second world war, when the percentage of immigrants was the lowest in history."
Whenever there have been large populations of immigrants, as there were in the early part of the 1900s and as there are now, hostility toward them rises, Gratton said.
And economics, more than idealism, has most often been the driving force behind American immigration law. A guest worker program has been tried before, most notably the Bracero program that brought Mexican labor north for 20 years to work in industries like agriculture. Worrying about who gets what jobs has never made for easy relationships between immigrants and Americans who have been here for generations.
So it comes as no surprise to historians to hear some of the rhetoric aimed at illegal immigrants, many of whom work in low-wage industries, have poor language skills, and are more likely these days to be coming from places in Latin America and Asia than from northern Europe.
The Germans, the Italians, the Irish, they've all come under fire. Now it's other groups like Latinos, particularly Mexicans.
"The nativist rhetoric stayed the same, the groups have changed," said Ronald Bayor, history professor at Georgia Tech.
Some are concerned about what impact the current immigration reform proposal would have on our culture, with its heavy emphasis on economics. They worry that America will lose something if economic benefit becomes the standard by which people are allowed to be Americans.
"As far as I'm concerned, it is one of last things we can be proud of," Zolberg said. "By giving it up, I think it makes the United States more ordinary."
"I think we lose the promise," said Nestor Rodriguez, professor of sociology at the University of Houston. "It's a promise to others as well as to ourselves that we are a special nation."
Others aren't as concerned, pointing out that a change in the criteria for people coming here is not the same thing as stopping them from coming _ as happened in 1924 _ and that immigration is still being allowed.
"There have been plenty of times when we've made it more difficult, but to absolutely stop it, we've not done that very often," said James Olsen, history professor at Sam Houston State University in Texas.
Some say the notion of America as an immigrant-friendly place will continue.
"Many of the people who have come here in recent decades feel very grateful to the United States for the opportunities they've had. They continue to see the United States as benevolent, that's going to continue," said Alan Kraut, a history professor at American University. "Even if we switch to an occupational system, those who do come will continue to see the United States as having done something wonderful." |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us