Chase Pearson - Information Project
Immigration in the U.S.
Immigration is a sensitive topic for many people, even more so when discussing illegal immigration. If you look at social media you can find heated debates on the subject, but how many people actually understand the entire picture? The extent of the laws and processes of immigration are complex and confusing to understand. My goal is to cover the main points of immigration in the United States in a condensed yet coherent way. I will also provide examples of how government has attempted to revise these laws in recent years. If we can better understand the situation, we will know the best method for reform.
Illegal Immigration
Who is actually considered an illegal immigrant? An immigrant may be classified as illegal for the following three reasons: the individual enters without inspection or authorization, the individual stays beyond an authorized period following legal entry, or the individual violates the terms of legal entry. A full list of laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying can be found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code in the section titled “Improper Entry of Alien.” Any immigrant found breaking these laws will be fined and/or imprisoned. Individuals who are caught illegally immigrating will face detention, imprisonment or deportation. The United States, per year, holds roughly 300,000 illegal immigrants in immigration detention centers (Immigration Laws).
An illegal immigrant’s deportation is determined in administrative or removal proceedings, held by the government in accordance with United States immigration law. A removal proceeding is typically conducted in an immigration court and held by an immigration judge. If the individual is found guilty of illegally immigrating, he/she may be sent back to their home country and barred from re-entry to the United States.
Law Enforcement
The country seems to be very split on the best way to enforce the law once someone is found guilty of immigrating illegally. Some groups call for more lenience while others demand stricter punishment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is responsible for patrolling country borders and arresting those who attempt to enter illegally. This uniformed law enforcement is meant to discourage those trying to enter at undesignated points, however many remain undeterred.
The government also conducts audits on employment records to reveal any identification record discrepancies. If absolute evidence is found of undocumented immigration, deportation may occur. An immigrant's visa information and expiration dates are observed by the government as well (Immigration Laws).
History of U.S. Immigration
The basic structure of the laws today stems from the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, also known as the Immigration Law of 1965, which heavily reformed the state of immigration at the time. Before this the amount of individuals admitted into the country was solely dependent on country of origin (Luden, Jennifer). Civil rights movements of the time helped to encourage a reformation of the old fashioned system.
Family unification became the cornerstone of the U.S. Immigration policy. For the first time, higher preference was given to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) is as follows: 1. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. 2. Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens. 3. Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability. 4. Married children of U.S. citizens. 5. Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one. 6. Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply. 7. Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East. 8. Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else. (Three Decades of Mass Immigration).
Immigration Regulations
In addition to family and country immigration limits, the United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on a permanent or a temporary basis. There are over 20 variations of visa's offered to both higher-skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the employee plus their eligible spouse and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. (How the United States Immigration System Works).
The country limit applies the same maximum number of visas regardless of that country’s population. This restricts those in high populous countries such as Mexico, India, China and the Philippines-which were the leading countries of origin for immigration to the U.S. in 2013 (Yearbook of Immigration Statistics).
Current attempts at reformation
Some states have resolved to establish stricter individual laws to deal with illegal immigration. For an example of strict immigration reform we can look to Alabama, which in June 2011 passed the harshest state immigration law in the country. The state government decided it was time to take matters into their own hands. Known as HB 56, the law required police to arrest immigration violators, schools had to check children's legal status, and landlords were banned from renting homes to undocumented immigrants. Supporters of Alabama’s law argued it was necessary because Congress had repeatedly failed to pass a workable immigration policy of its own. “The illegal’s in this country are ripping us off,” state Representative Kerry Rich, who represents Albertville, told reporters the day HB 56 passed “If we wait for the federal government to put this fire out, our house is going to burn down" (Sarlin, Benjy).
Once the bill was passed, Alabama started experiencing some serious problems. Churches complained that the law’s ban on providing aid to undocumented immigrants could criminalize everything from soup kitchens to Spanish-language Sunday services. At courthouses, simple tasks like renewing one’s vehicle tags now required proof of legal status, which generated long lines for citizens and non-citizens alike. Utility companies were unsure whether they needed to cut off service to residents who couldn’t prove citizenship (Sarlin).
In Albertsville, the Hispanic community refused to speak to police enforcement, they feared reporting a crime would require them to provide personal documentation. Due to lawsuits and various complaints, Alabama was forced to make several revisions just months after the law went into effect. Less than two weeks after the bill was passed, a federal appeals court temporarily halted its requirement that schools ask about students’ legal status – a prime driver of the initial panic. Meanwhile, Arizona’s SB 1070, the model for Alabama’s law, wound its way to the Supreme Court, where justices blocked police from detaining people just because they suspected they were undocumented, one of several key provisions they struck down (Sarlin). Many of the provisions were gradually removed, and the main goal of the law, to expel the state's undocumented immigrants, had essentially failed.
Canada, on the other hand, is considered by many to be the most immigrant-friendly country in the world. Obtaining permanent residency in Canada is a much simpler process than in the U.S; in most cases the applicant must be willing to pay a fee as well as being a law abiding citizen in their respected country. Interestingly, the overall attitude towards immigrants in Canada starkly contrasts the views held in the United States. Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration—to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorized under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential (E.G.). Perhaps America can follow Canada's lead in instituting a similar mindset in regards to immigration.
Americans are heavily divided when it comes to illegal immigration. On one side we sympathize with immigrants because they may come from harsh conditions, not different at all from the immigrants that built up this country. On the other side we expect some form of consequences for breaking the laws we have established. Is it fair to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants when others have spent time and money to follow the correct process? A compromise is indeed difficult, but not impossible. Other countries have found success in allowing more immigrants inside their borders to great success. We must choose a system that will best suit our situation. Educating ourselves and actively including our voices in the debate is the first step towards change.
Immigration is a sensitive topic for many people, even more so when discussing illegal immigration. If you look at social media you can find heated debates on the subject, but how many people actually understand the entire picture? The extent of the laws and processes of immigration are complex and confusing to understand. My goal is to cover the main points of immigration in the United States in a condensed yet coherent way. I will also provide examples of how government has attempted to revise these laws in recent years. If we can better understand the situation, we will know the best method for reform.
Illegal Immigration
Who is actually considered an illegal immigrant? An immigrant may be classified as illegal for the following three reasons: the individual enters without inspection or authorization, the individual stays beyond an authorized period following legal entry, or the individual violates the terms of legal entry. A full list of laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying can be found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code in the section titled “Improper Entry of Alien.” Any immigrant found breaking these laws will be fined and/or imprisoned. Individuals who are caught illegally immigrating will face detention, imprisonment or deportation. The United States, per year, holds roughly 300,000 illegal immigrants in immigration detention centers (Immigration Laws).
An illegal immigrant’s deportation is determined in administrative or removal proceedings, held by the government in accordance with United States immigration law. A removal proceeding is typically conducted in an immigration court and held by an immigration judge. If the individual is found guilty of illegally immigrating, he/she may be sent back to their home country and barred from re-entry to the United States.
Law Enforcement
The country seems to be very split on the best way to enforce the law once someone is found guilty of immigrating illegally. Some groups call for more lenience while others demand stricter punishment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is responsible for patrolling country borders and arresting those who attempt to enter illegally. This uniformed law enforcement is meant to discourage those trying to enter at undesignated points, however many remain undeterred.
The government also conducts audits on employment records to reveal any identification record discrepancies. If absolute evidence is found of undocumented immigration, deportation may occur. An immigrant's visa information and expiration dates are observed by the government as well (Immigration Laws).
History of U.S. Immigration
The basic structure of the laws today stems from the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, also known as the Immigration Law of 1965, which heavily reformed the state of immigration at the time. Before this the amount of individuals admitted into the country was solely dependent on country of origin (Luden, Jennifer). Civil rights movements of the time helped to encourage a reformation of the old fashioned system.
Family unification became the cornerstone of the U.S. Immigration policy. For the first time, higher preference was given to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) is as follows: 1. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. 2. Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens. 3. Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability. 4. Married children of U.S. citizens. 5. Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one. 6. Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply. 7. Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East. 8. Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else. (Three Decades of Mass Immigration).
Immigration Regulations
In addition to family and country immigration limits, the United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on a permanent or a temporary basis. There are over 20 variations of visa's offered to both higher-skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the employee plus their eligible spouse and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. (How the United States Immigration System Works).
The country limit applies the same maximum number of visas regardless of that country’s population. This restricts those in high populous countries such as Mexico, India, China and the Philippines-which were the leading countries of origin for immigration to the U.S. in 2013 (Yearbook of Immigration Statistics).
Current attempts at reformation
Some states have resolved to establish stricter individual laws to deal with illegal immigration. For an example of strict immigration reform we can look to Alabama, which in June 2011 passed the harshest state immigration law in the country. The state government decided it was time to take matters into their own hands. Known as HB 56, the law required police to arrest immigration violators, schools had to check children's legal status, and landlords were banned from renting homes to undocumented immigrants. Supporters of Alabama’s law argued it was necessary because Congress had repeatedly failed to pass a workable immigration policy of its own. “The illegal’s in this country are ripping us off,” state Representative Kerry Rich, who represents Albertville, told reporters the day HB 56 passed “If we wait for the federal government to put this fire out, our house is going to burn down" (Sarlin, Benjy).
Once the bill was passed, Alabama started experiencing some serious problems. Churches complained that the law’s ban on providing aid to undocumented immigrants could criminalize everything from soup kitchens to Spanish-language Sunday services. At courthouses, simple tasks like renewing one’s vehicle tags now required proof of legal status, which generated long lines for citizens and non-citizens alike. Utility companies were unsure whether they needed to cut off service to residents who couldn’t prove citizenship (Sarlin).
In Albertsville, the Hispanic community refused to speak to police enforcement, they feared reporting a crime would require them to provide personal documentation. Due to lawsuits and various complaints, Alabama was forced to make several revisions just months after the law went into effect. Less than two weeks after the bill was passed, a federal appeals court temporarily halted its requirement that schools ask about students’ legal status – a prime driver of the initial panic. Meanwhile, Arizona’s SB 1070, the model for Alabama’s law, wound its way to the Supreme Court, where justices blocked police from detaining people just because they suspected they were undocumented, one of several key provisions they struck down (Sarlin). Many of the provisions were gradually removed, and the main goal of the law, to expel the state's undocumented immigrants, had essentially failed.
Canada, on the other hand, is considered by many to be the most immigrant-friendly country in the world. Obtaining permanent residency in Canada is a much simpler process than in the U.S; in most cases the applicant must be willing to pay a fee as well as being a law abiding citizen in their respected country. Interestingly, the overall attitude towards immigrants in Canada starkly contrasts the views held in the United States. Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration—to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorized under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential (E.G.). Perhaps America can follow Canada's lead in instituting a similar mindset in regards to immigration.
Americans are heavily divided when it comes to illegal immigration. On one side we sympathize with immigrants because they may come from harsh conditions, not different at all from the immigrants that built up this country. On the other side we expect some form of consequences for breaking the laws we have established. Is it fair to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants when others have spent time and money to follow the correct process? A compromise is indeed difficult, but not impossible. Other countries have found success in allowing more immigrants inside their borders to great success. We must choose a system that will best suit our situation. Educating ourselves and actively including our voices in the debate is the first step towards change.