Download the Student Webquest for Mon Oct 22, 2007 (.doc format)
These links are used for the wwebquest
This "Making Immigration Law" info was found on a web link that does not function.
Please use this information instead of the dead weblink from the assignment.
Making Immigration Law
http://www.uscis.gov 2006
There are many sources of law governing immigration. First among these is the United States Constitution. A main source of immigration law is statutes (laws, public laws) enacted by Congress. Most of the laws affecting immigration are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act, often referred to as "the Act" or simply as the "INA." Although the provisions (terms) of most statutes affecting immigration are reflected in the INA, many are not codified in the INA and must be found in the original legislation in which they were enacted.
Statutes usually provide broad authority and apply to general situations. Agencies must take the general provisions of the statute and apply them to specific, detailed situations. The INS regulations serve this purpose. There are immigration laws that involve other agencies in addition to the INS. For example, both the Department of Labor and Department of State are involved in the administration of the immigration laws. You can find these additional regulations here (Other Immigration CFRs).
One source of legal interpretations of immigration laws and regulations are administrative decisions. The Board of Immigration Appeals is a separate agency within the Department of Justice that reviews immigration cases and issues appellate administrative decisions that are binding on the INS nationwide.
The Library of Congress has an excellent in-depth discussion of how our laws are made. You might wish to check it out for more information
US Immigration Policy Today 2006
http://www.closeup.org/immigrat.htm#overview
Introduction
The United States was built by immigrants, many seeking a new life in a new land. Before 1882, anyone could move to the United States. But as the population grew, the federal government decided to control immigration. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the federal government has fine-tuned its immigration policies to answer specific concerns of its citizens. In recent years, an increasing number of Americans have come to believe that the country is being overwhelmed by immigrants, and they have asked policymakers to create laws that discourage both legal and illegal immigration. Responding to this demand, in 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law three bills that may have broad impact on immigration control and immigrants' rights in the United States. The controversy surrounding this and other policies has made immigration one of the most divisive public policy issues of the decade.
The debate over immigration offers a modern-day reading of the principles that many people think America was founded on—providing newcomers with freedom from oppression and the opportunity for prosperity. This debate centers around two major issues: the economy and the national identity of the United States. Some Americans think that immigrants are a burden on the U.S. economy, while others think that they benefit it. In addition, critics of immigration are concerned that the country is splintering along racial and cultural lines because immigrants are not being assimilated properly into U.S. society. Should the government place further restrictions on legal immigration? Should the government deny social services to illegal immigrants? Should English be the official language of the United States? These are just some of the questions being debated by lawmakers and citizens across the country.
Controlling Immigration
The United States was founded and settled by immigrants. At first, the country was open to anyone wishing to make a new start. Many came to America to escape war, poverty, famine, or religious persecution. Some came seeking fortune and others were brought against their will to work as slaves. These and other factors resulted in a large-scale influx of immigrants to the United States from around the world.
Early immigration laws aimed to preserve the racial, religious, and ethnic composition of the United States, which was then largely European. The first immigration laws were aimed at nonwhites. In 1882, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act suspended immigration from China for sixty years. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated an informal "gentlemen's agreement" with Japan, under which the United States promised to desegregate California schools—which had separated Japanese students from others—and in return, the Japanese government promised to stop the emigration of its citizens.
Soon, however, Americans were complaining about European immigrants as well. For example, a law passed by Congress in 1921 encouraged immigration from western European countries such as Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia because natives of these lands seemed more likely to assimilate. Meanwhile, the law discouraged immigration from eastern and southern Europe. This law, along with many other immigration laws in the 1800s and 1900s, was based on quotas; only a certain number of individuals with a given background or heritage could move to the United States. In 1929, Congress passed the National Origins Act, which set an annual quota of 150,000 immigrants, only 30 percent of which could come from southern and eastern Europe.
After World War II, Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. This law allowed some of the people left homeless after the war to come to the United States. In 1952, President Harry Truman signed the McCarran-Walter Act, which revised the National Origins Act. People of all races would now be eligible for immigration into the United States. However, under this law, ideology became a criterion for admission. Both immigrants' and citizens' political beliefs were questioned during the "Red scare" of the 1950s, as the government sought to weed out people with even a marginally communist background. The McCarran-Walter Act was overturned in 1990 when Congress made it illegal for the U.S. government to deny people entry because of their beliefs, statements, or associations.
The Immigration Act of 1965 represented a major reform of all previous immigration laws. It abolished quotas that discriminated against nationalities, substituting an overall limit of 170,000 immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The effects of the 1965 law are still being felt today. Before 1965, the United States had been a safe haven from poverty and civil war for masses of people in neighboring countries, such as Mexico. By limiting the number of immigrants from Latin America, the Immigration Act of 1965 touched off a serious illegal immigration problem.
Recent Immigration Laws. During the later part of the twentieth century, U.S. immigration policy has addressed specific modern-day problems. In some instances, the federal government has set limits on the number of immigrants—who fall into certain classifications, such as refugee—who are allowed to reside in the country. The Refugee Act of 1980 legally defined a refugee as someone who flees a country because of persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." The act allows the president to admit refugees in a time of emergency and also places a limit on the number of refugees allowed to enter. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which was designed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from Latin America by imposing sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens. In 1990, the Immigration Act increased the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States by nearly 40 percent. Finally, in 1996, Congress passed three bills, including the 1996 Immigration Act, that will affect not only immigration control, as many previous laws sought to dictate, but also immigrants' rights in the United States today.
Immigration Today
The United States admits approximately 900,000 legal immigrants every year, and annual immigration is swelled by another 300,000 people who illegally cross the borders of the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about 5 million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States. Both legal and illegal immigrants contribute to dramatic changes in the racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of the country. Some U.S. citizens think that immigrants have revitalized many American cities, but in certain communities there has been a backlash against the growing presence of immigrants.
Further Restrictions on Immigration? The 1996 Immigration Act is the most extensive immigration legislation passed by Congress in a decade. Focusing on the problem of illegal immigration, this law seeks to reduce the number of Mexican laborers crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in search of work. The new legislation doubles the border control force to 10,000 agents over five years and adds fences to the most heavily trafficked areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. It also includes a pilot program to check the immigration status of job applicants. However, the bill does not address the problem of illegal immigrants who gain entry into the United States with student or temporary work visas and then stay in the country after their visas have expired.
Many Americans support these restrictions on immigration because they think that illegal immigrants take low-skilled jobs away from American citizens. Some also contend that the average wages of Americans without a high school degree have fallen because of competition with newly arrived immigrants who frequently work for less money. However, opponents of restrictions maintain that immigrants actually help the American economy by working diligently and by filling low-wage positions that many others find undesirable. They state that the average American citizen benefits from a healthier economy and lower prices on goods and services due to the influx of cheap labor.
Legal immigration is also a source of controversy in the United States, and some observers predict that the 105th Congress will soon try to pass legislation imposing restrictions on the number of legal immigrants admitted every year as well. Proponents of these restrictions question whether the United States needs to admit as many as 900,000 people annually. They argue that there is no shortage of trained labor in the United States and that skilled immigrants are taking jobs away from qualified Americans. On the other hand, those who oppose further restrictions believe that legal immigrants help the economy. Among the critics are many members of the business community, who say that they cannot find enough multilingual and scientifically trained American workers to stay competitive in the global economy. Imposing further regulations and restrictions on companies would, in the words of Microsoft's Bill Gates, "prevent companies like ours from doing business in the United States."
The debate over restricting immigration reflects the many conflicting visions of America's national identity. For example, 1996 Republican presidential candidate and frequent immigration critic Pat Buchanan wrote a column in which he asked, "When did we vote to rid America of her 'dominant European culture'?" He supplies the answer to his own question: "Never." Many Americans share Buchanan's concern about America's culture. However, others argue that there is an undercurrent of racism in Buchanan's rhetoric and point out that, earlier this century, people from some parts of Europe were considered undesirable and were prohibited from entering the United States in large numbers. Opponents of restricting immigration also maintain that America is a nation of immigrants and that it has always been, and should continue to be, a safe haven for people seeking a better life. They still believe in the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
Denying Benefits to Illegal Immigrants. In the past few years, both state and federal governments have passed laws to deny benefits to illegal immigrants. In November 1994, voters in California overwhelmingly approved the "Save Our State" amendment, better known as Proposition 187. The law would deny illegal aliens all public social services, public nonemergency health care based on financial needs, and public education. Generally, illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare grants such as unemployment or Social Security, but children and parents in need are entitled to some services. Officials in California report that providing illegal immigrants these social services costs the state $3 billion annually. Proposition 187 is not yet in effect, however, because it was immediately challenged in court by civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups. The U.S. Supreme Court may eventually rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 187.
In August 1996, President Clinton signed a sweeping new welfare reform bill that cut many social programs for both citizens and immigrants. This legislation makes illegal immigrants ineligible for virtually all federal and state benefits except emergency medical care, immunization programs, and disaster relief. It also denies current legal immigrants food stamps and Supplemental Security Income—a program for older, blind, and disabled people.
Many taxpayers in states such as California, where an estimated 40 percent of all illegal immigrants reside, support these policies because they are concerned about the spiraling cost of social programs. These Americans believe that the government, by providing free medical care and education to undocumented immigrants, is unintentionally encouraging people to enter the United States illegally; many refer to this phenomena as the "magnet effect." Some supporters of the legislation also emphasize that if immigrants pass the citizenship exam and become American citizens they become eligible for public services once again. Experts predict that about half of those in danger of losing their benefits will eventually become citizens.
Although most Americans agree that illegal immigration is to some extent a problem, many oppose denying social services to undocumented aliens and their families. They argue that such laws will not discourage illegal immigration because they believe that foreigners come to the United States to work, not to collect benefits. Opponents also point to studies indicating that illegal immigrants rely on social benefits in the same proportions as other Americans, and believe that preventing immigrants from receiving medical care and education will worsen the problem of low-income neighborhoods in cities across the country. Some of the nation's largest police organizations also spoke out against Proposition 187 and its likely effects if a similar law were to be adopted on a national level. The superintendent of the Chicago police department wrote to then-senator Bob Dole that "forcing young people out of schools and onto the streets would have disastrous long-term effects on public safety."
English Only? As the number of immigrants from Latin America and Asia has increased, many Americans have felt the presence of another culture in their community. In 1995, many people were disturbed to see some recent immigrants taking the U.S. naturalization pledge in Spanish rather than English. Although every immigrant who wishes to become a citizen must prove proficiency and literacy in English—the citizenship exam is administered in English—some people are still more comfortable speaking their native language. Responding to some U.S. citizens' concerns, certain members of Congress advocated that the United States adopt English as its official language.
Twenty-three states, including Arizona, have already adopted English as their official language. Many of these state laws are largely symbolic, similar to the proclamation of a state bird or flower. In 1988, however, Arizona voters passed an amendment that requires government workers to conduct state business in English. This case has been challenged as a violation of free speech by a state worker who often uses Spanish in her dealings with clients. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
Supporters of adopting English as the country's official language believe that having a recognized common language would encourage immigrants to learn English. Proponents of this idea worry that the country is becoming more segregated and that people live in "linguistic ghettos." They argue that a common language would enable people in a diverse nation to communicate with others more effectively and would help unify the nation. In addition, some English-only proponents contend that taxpayers' money is wasted printing government forms and providing services in other languages. They maintain that the U.S. government should instead allocate these funds to teach English to immigrants, so the newcomers can find jobs and assimilate into American society.
Other Americans believe that making English the official language of the United States would fundamentally exclude some people from voting or understanding U.S. laws. Some people argue that the advocates of the English-only movement are fueled by a fear of immigrants, not by concerns over national identity or wasted tax dollars. Critics also point out that not only have immigrants of all ethnic backgrounds assimilated into America throughout history without being obligated to speak English, but they have made many social, political, and economic contributions to U.S. society along the way. In addition, some maintain that having one official language is a violation of their First Amendment rights and worry that tightly enforced English-only laws could proceed down a slippery slope and lead to abuses of their freedoms of speech and expression.
Conclusion
As more and more people of different races and cultures enter the United States and the ethnic composition of the country changes, immigration becomes a more intensely debated issue. Some Americans favor tighter immigration restrictions and argue that immigrants take jobs away from U.S. citizens, drain social services, and resist learning English. Others, however, point to America's historic commitment to immigration and believe that immigrants keep the nation strong, economically competitive, and culturally rich. The question of whether America's doors should be open or closed will continue to be intensely debated in the courts, in Congress, and in communities where immigrants settle. |
