Introduction
"This
bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of
millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives." So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the
Hart-Celler Immigration Bill thirty years ago next month, on Oct. 3, 1965. The
legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first
instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today's immigration law. And,
contrary to the president's assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass
immigration which has affected the lives of millions.
Despite modifications, the framework established by the 1965
act remains intact today. And, while the reform proposals now being discussed
in Congress, the administration, and the Commission on Immigration Reform would
reduce the total number of legal immigrants, they would maintain the
fundamentals of the 1965 act — family reunification and employment preferences.
So it behooves us on this 30th anniversary to look at the act and the
expectations its sponsors had for it.
Under the old system, admission largely depended upon an
immigrant's country of birth. Seventy percent of all immigrant slots were
allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and
Germany — and went mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the
small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland,
Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.
The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria,
supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to
the United States. The new legislation (P.L. 89 236; 79 Stat. 911; technically,
amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) substituted a system
based primarily on family reunification and needed skills.
In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, President Johnson
criticized the old policy at the signing ceremony:
"This system violates the
basic principle of American democracy -- the principle that values and rewards
each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the
highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands
to these shores even before we were a country." (Johnson, Lyndon B.,
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1037-1040.)
Despite the noble words, the architects of the 1965 law did
not see it as a means of significantly changing the immigration flow — it was
considered more a symbolic act, an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond
our borders. Proponents repeatedly
denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number
of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration. Many
senators and representatives believed that the new, equal quotas would not be
fully used by European, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations. In addition, they
did not foresee the expansion of non-quota admissions (those not covered by
numerical limits) under the act's strengthened provisions for family
reunification.
The unexpected result has been one of the greatest waves of
immigration in the nation's history — more than 18 million legal immigrants
since the law's passage, over triple the number admitted during the previous 30
years, as well as uncountable millions of illegal immigrants. And the new
immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than return home after a time) than
those who came around the turn of the century. Moreover, this new, enlarged
immigration flow came from countries in Asia and Latin America which heretofore
had sent few of their sons and daughters to the United States. And finally,
although the average level of education of immigrants has increased somewhat
over the past 30 years, the negative gap between their education and that of
native-born Americans has increased significantly, creating a mismatch between
newcomers and the needs of a modern, high-tech economy.
This paper offers a brief overview of the issues relating to
the anniversary, including quotes from many of the participants, as well as an
outline of the law's consequences.
Setting
The liberalization of immigration policy reflected in the
1965 legislation can be understood as part of the evolutionary trend in federal
policy after World War II to end legal discrimination based on race and
ethnicity — essentially, the
immigration bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and
a symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake.
In 1957, Congress passed the first civil rights law since
Reconstruction, another in 1960, and two important bills in 1964 and 1965.
Moreover, Supreme Court decisions and state and local laws also struck at the
remnants of legal racism. The immigration bill was merely another step in this
process.
The connection between civil rights legislation and
abolishing the national origins quotas was explicit. As Rep. Philip Burton
(D-CA) said in Congress:
"Just as we sought to
eliminate discrimination in our land through the Civil Rights Act, today we
seek by phasing out the national origins quota system to eliminate
discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the descendants of
immigrants." (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21783.)
And Rep. Robert Sweeney (D-OH) said:
"Mr. Chairman, I would
consider the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act to be as
important as the landmark legislation of this Congress relating to the Civil
Rights Act. The central purpose of the administration's immigration bill is to
once again undo discrimination and to revise the standards by which we choose
potential Americans in order to be fairer to them and which will certainly be
more beneficial to us." (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21765.)
Other politicians also thought the immigration law needed to
be changed. Much earlier, President Truman, in the message accompanying his
(unsuccessful) veto of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act (which had maintained the
national origins quota system), wrote:
"These are only a few
examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952
the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national
life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are
in this field of immigration." (Truman, Harry S., Public Papers of the
Presidents of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1961, pp. 443-444.)
In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared to
Congress: "I again urge the
liberalization of some of our restrictions upon immigration...we should double
the 154,000 quota immigrants ... we should make special provisions for the
absorption of many thousands of persons who are refugees." (Eisenhower,
Dwight D., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961, pp. 308-310.)
President John F. Kennedy's immigration message to Congress
on July 23, 1963, assailed the national origins quota system as having "no
basis in either logic or reason." He complained,
"It neither satisfies a
national need nor accomplishes an international purpose. In an age of
interdependence among nations, such a system is an anachronism for it
discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the
basis of the accident of birth." (Kennedy, John F., Public Papers of the
Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1964, pp. 594-597.)
Foreign policy concerns also motivated some to support
change in the national origins system. With the decolonization of Africa and
Asia, and with ongoing competition with the Soviet Union for the hearts and
minds of the developing world, the quota system was seen as an embarrassment.
Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, for instance, said the existing immigration
law stood in contrast to the growth of refugee legislation aimed at forming
international linkages and having "the respect of people all around the
world." (Congressional Record,
June 27, 1952, p. 8267.)
Others favored a change in the law for more personal reasons
— they had relatives who were on long immigration waiting lists because of
small quotas for their countries. Italy, for instance, had an annual quota of
5,666 immigrants, Greece 308, Poland 6,488, Yugoslavia 942, and so on. Joseph
Errigo, National Chairman of the Sons of Italy Committee on Immigration, was
upset at the small size of Italy's quota and urged Congress to "abolish a
system which is gradually becoming unpopular and inoperative." Italy had
249,583 people waiting for admission into the United States. (U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p. 407.)
Details
The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:
Established the basic structure of today's immigration law.
Abolished the national origins quota system (originally
established in 1921 and most recently modified in 1952), while attempting to
keep immigration to a manageable level. Family reunification became the
cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.
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.
For the first time, gave higher preference 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) was 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.
Predictions
Although the 1965 bill was intended only to end
discrimination, some people feared a major increase in immigration and a change
in the source countries of immigrants. Supporters of the measure assured
doubters that this would not happen.
Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of the bill, told his
colleagues:
"With the end of
discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries other
than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will
have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively,
which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be, comparatively,
many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the people of Africa
and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from
those countries because they have no family ties in the U.S."
(Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21812.)
Attorney General Robert Kennedy told House immigration
subcommittee members,
"I would say for the
Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr.
Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear;
5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there
would be any great influx after that." (U.S. Congress, House, 1964
hearings, p. 418.)
And in a letter to The New York Times, he called for repeal
of the national origins system:
"The time has come for us to
insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system...It deprives us
of able immigrants whose contributions we need...It would increase the amount
of authorized immigration by only a fraction." (The New York Times, Aug.
24, 1964, p. 26.)
Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy
(D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
"First, our cities will not
be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the
present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the
ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in
some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any
one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and
Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the
proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to
think."
Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying, "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not
upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of
admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S.
Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the
Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
In 1965, new Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach testified:
"This bill is not designed to
increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America.
Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in
permissible immigration." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10,
1965, p.8.)
Secretary of State Dean Rusk, when asked about the number of
people from India who would want to immigrate, responded: "The present estimate, based upon the
best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from
India in the next five years ... I don't think we have a particular picture of
a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United
States ... There is not a general move toward the United States." (U.S.
Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the
Judiciary, Washington D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p.65.)
[Note: There were actually 27,859 Indian immigrants over the
five years following passage of the bill, three times Secretary Rusk's predicted
level. From 1965 through 1993, immigration from India totaled 558,980.]
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the
possible change in our cultural pattern by an influx of Asians. "Asians represent six-tenths of 1
percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we
estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the
people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population
.. .Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is
concerned." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization
of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71,
119.)
[Note: From 1966 to 1970, 19,399 immigrants came from Japan,
more than three times Sen. Fong's estimate. Immigration from Asia as a whole
has totaled 5,627,576 from 1966 to 1993. Three percent of the American
population is currently of Asian birth or heritage.]
Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL) supported the bill as a
reaffirmation of "our devotion to the principle of equal justice for
peoples previously subject to discrimination," but did not see it as
ushering in a new era of mass immigration: "I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of
immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great
days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends
have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad
dictate a changing migratory pattern." (Congressional Record, August 25,
1965, p. 21793.)
Another rosy prediction from a supporter of the bill, Sen.
Claiborne Pell (D-RI):
"Contrary to the opinions of
some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates."
(Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 24480.)
The original version of the bill gave top preference to
people with special skills, but that was changed in the final version to the
current nepotistic emphasis on family relationship. A Washington Post editorial
was no better at predicting the result than the bill's congressional
supporters:
"The most important change,
in fact, was in direction, shuffling the preference categories to give first
consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled
persons. This had more emotional appeal and, perhaps more to the point, insured
that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old
one." (The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1965, p. 16.)
Even Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), who voted against the bill
out of concern for overpopulation, didn't think the new preference system would
mean much of a change: "The
preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe,
on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in
effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing
law." (Congressional Record, Sept. 17, 1965, p. 24237.)
A few of the congressmen who opposed the bill did see that
the new system, even with tight labor controls, meant a drastic change.
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Rep. William Miller
of New York wrote: "We estimate
that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are
repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in
subsequent years will increase even more ... shall we, instead, look at this
situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before
we start tackling the world's?" (The New York Times, Sept. 8, 1964, p.
14.)
[Note: Although immigration did increase as dramatically as
Rep. Miller predicted, it took longer than he thought. By 1968 — when the law
fully took effect — the 1965 level of 290,697 had increased to 454,448,
"only" a 56 percent increase.]
Another opponent, Sen. Spessard Holland (D-FL), told his
colleagues: "What I object to is
imposing no limitation insofar as areas of the earth are concerned, but saying
that we are throwing the doors open and equally inviting people from the
Orient, from the islands of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of Asia, from
the Near East, from all of Africa, all of Europe, and all of the Western
Hemisphere on exactly the same basis. I am inviting attention to the fact that
this is a complete and radical departure from what has always heretofore been
regarded as sound principles of immigration." (Congressional Record, Sept.
22, 1965, p. 24779.)
Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects
of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President
of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee
hearing: "In light of our 5
percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion,
and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great
a horde of the world's unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics
of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their
Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security
against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome ... for an
indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands."
"We should remember that
people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to
live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian
welfare handouts ... lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural
patterns ..."
"Whatever may be our
benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due
consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public
sentiment of the citizens of the United States." (U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the
Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681-687.)
Results
Legal Immigration to the United States, 1820-1994
The 1965 changes unwittingly ushered in a new era of mass
immigration. The current level of immigration is actually higher than the graph
below indicates because illegal immigration
is much higher now than ever before, with a conservative estimate of 300,000
new permanent illegal immigrants each year. The result is an influx of more
than 1 million people a year, with no natural end in sight.
Return Migration
Another factor in intensifying the impact of immigration is
a reduced rate of emigration — that is, more of today's newcomers stay for
their whole lives, rather than returning to the old country after a few years.
Note that in the 1930s, emigration was higher than 100 percent, meaning that
during the Great Depression more people left the country than entered.
Change in Source Countries of Immigrants
Despite the protestations of the 1965 act's sponsors, the
sources of immigration have changed radically. This is partly due to the fact
that there are fewer people in Europe are seeking to leave, now that most
countries there are modern and industrialized. The ending of the national
origins quotas opened the doors to mass entry of people from Asia and Latin
America (regions where people are far more likely to want to emigrate), and the
law's emphasis on family reunification ensured that those through the door
first would be able to bring in their relatives, freezing out potential
immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations.
Growing Education Gap
Although the percentage of high school dropouts among
immigrants has fallen somewhat, the gap between natives and the foreign born
has grown significantly, with immigrants more than twice as likely as
native-born Americans not to have completed high school. This contributes to a
growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of
well-paying jobs.
Chronology
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — Barred the entry of any Chinese for 10 years, made
permanent in 1904 until it was rescinded in 1943.
1907 Gentlemen's Agreement — Barred the entry of Japanese and Koreans.
1917 Immigration Act — Passed
over President Wilson's veto, it established a literacy test and created the
"Asiatic Barred Zone," virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia.
1921 Quota Act (Johnson Act) — Set the first immigration quotas in the nation's
history, equal to 3 percent of the foreign born of admissible nationality in
the 1910 census. There was still no limit on immigration from the Western
Hemisphere.
1924 Immigration Act (Johnson-Reid Act) — Set an annual ceiling of 154,227 for the Eastern
Hemisphere. Each country had a quota representative of its population in the
U.S. as of the 1920 census.
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act) — Passed over President Truman's veto, it reaffirmed the
basic provisions of the national origins quota system, and the annual ceiling
remained 154,277. It abolished immigration and naturalization exclusions
against Asians and allotted 100 visas for each Asian country. In addition, the
act instituted a system to give preference (within the national origins quotas)
to foreigners with education or skills, as well as relatives — this was the
predecessor of today's preference system. Immigration from Latin America and
the Caribbean remained exempt from numerical limits.
1965 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act
(Hart-Celler Act) — See "Details"
section of this paper.
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.
Contacts
Many of those involved in the debate
30 years ago are still with us, either in Congress or retired, and their
recollections might be worth noting. Among them are: Sen. Edward Kennedy. He
ushered the bill through the Senate. Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS). Then a
congressman, Sen. Dole voted for the bill. Sens. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted no. Former
President Gerald Ford, then a congressman, voted yes. Former Sen. Albert Gore
Sr., the Vice President's father, voted yes. Former Sen. Eugene McCarthy voted
for the bill in 1965, but has since criticized the direction of U.S.
immigration policy.
Others who voted for the 1965 bill: Sen. Daniel Inouye
(D-HI); Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI); Rep. George Brown Jr. (D-CA); Rep. Sam Gibbons
(D-FL); Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI); Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL); Rep. Lee Hamilton
(D-IN); Rep. Andrew Jacobs Jr. (D-IN); Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI); Rep. John
Dingell (D-MI); Rep. Joseph McDade (R-PA); Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX); former
Sen. George McGovern; former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski. Others who voted against
the bill: Rep. James Quillen (R-TN); Rep. E. (Kika) de la Garza (D-TX).
No comments:
Post a Comment