Imigracijska kvota nametnuta - povijest

Imigracijska kvota nametnuta - povijest



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Imigracijska kvota nametnuta

Zamjenik policijskog komesara New Yorka John A. Leach, desno, gleda agente kako toče alkohol u kanalizaciju nakon racije tijekom najveće zabrane

Po prvi put, Sjedinjene Države donijele su restriktivnu useljeničku kvotu. Kvota je osmišljena da zadrži "karakter" Sjedinjenih Država. Dodijelila je imigracijske potvrde na temelju broja stanovnika Sjedinjenih Država 1910.


Kroz američku povijest nastavio se sukob između onih koji su podržavali nastavak useljavanja i onih koji su se tome protivili. 1894. osnovana je Liga za ograničavanje useljavanja. Odobrio je testove pismenosti za buduće imigrante. Test pismenosti prošao je u Kongresu 1896., ali je na njega stavio veto predsjednik Grover Cleveland, koji je inzistirao na tome da bi Sjedinjene Države trebale ostati utočište za sve potlačene ljude.

Predsjednik Theodore Roosevelt, međutim, snažno je podržavao test pismenosti. Osim toga, odgovarajući na ubojstvo predsjednika McKinleyja, pozvao je na isključenje anarhista. Kongres je hitno donio zakon o isključenju anarhista, a četiri godine kasnije i onih koji su bili "imbecili, slaboumni ljudi i ljudi, s tjelesnim ili mentalnim nedostacima".

1907. Kongres je imenovao zajedničko povjerenstvo Doma i Senata pod nazivom Dillinghamsko povjerenstvo. Njegovo izvješće poziva na izdavanje testova pismenosti. Također se predlaže restriktivna politika koja bi ograničila useljavanje na temelju nacionalnog podrijetla. Kongres je usvojio prijedlog zakona koji zahtijeva provjeru pismenosti, ali je predsjednik Wilson stavio veto na njega. 1917. Kongres je ponovno donio zakon koji zahtijeva pismenost useljenika. Wilson je još jednom stavio veto na prijedlog zakona, no ovaj je put Kongres poništio veto.

Rastući nacionalizam koji se dogodio tijekom Prvog svjetskog rata, kao i podrška sindikata, rezultirali su usvajanjem Imigracijskog zakona iz 1921. godine, koji je imigraciju ograničio na 3% stanovništva Sjedinjenih Država, na temelju 1910. godine. popis. Mnogi od najnovijih imigranata u kojima su Talijani ili Židovi i predrasude prema Židovima i Talijanima nesumnjivo imali ulogu u podržavanju zakona.


Povijest otoka Ellis od 1892. do 1954. godine

Krovna kapa iz paviljona hodnika između zgrade za kuhinju i praonicu rublja i zgrade elektrane/trajekta

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Povijest i korištenje otoka Ellis kao useljeničke stanice i bolnice od 1892. do 1954. godine
Arhitektonska povijest izgradnje imigracijske postaje na otoku Ellis opširno je zastupljena u muzejskim arhivima i knjižničnim zbirkama u kojima se nalaze brojna izvješća, monografije i dokumenti koji sadrže izvorni dizajn i izgradnju zgrada, bolnica i pratećih građevina te sve kasnije izmjene. i restauracije zgrada do danas. Dokumentacija o sanaciji svih zgrada i naporima prikupljena od strane dva partnera NPS-a, Zaklade Kip slobode-Ellis Island i Save Ellis Island uključeni su u muzejsku arhivu i knjižnicu.

Tijekom rehabilitacije arhitektonskih struktura na otoku Ellis, prikupljaju se stvarne građevinske komponente, poput ukrasnog bakrenog bljeskalice i odvodnje, koje su jedinstvene za to mjesto ili u vremenskom razdoblju kada značajke imaju i interpretativnu, izložbenu vrijednost i upotrebu kao predložak za buduću obnovu ili obnovu zgrada.

Ispust c. 1930.-1939

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Bočica s pilulama za bolnicu Zavoda za javno zdravstvo, c. 1950. godine

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Pozornost se također pridaje administrativnoj povijesti i službenim dnevnim aktivnostima otoka Ellis kada je djelovao kao useljenička stanica usredotočujući se na politiku javnog zdravstva, medicinske i pravne inspekcije useljenika koju provode Služba za useljavanje i naturalizaciju Sjedinjenih Država, te Državna služba za javno zdravstvo. Djelatnost Zavoda za javno zdravstvo na otoku Ellis predstavljena je u muzejskoj zbirci predmetima kao što su tanjuri i bočice s lijekovima koji se nalaze na licu mjesta u bolničkim zgradama.

Tanjur koji koriste Food Services na otoku Ellis

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Neki od medicinskog osoblja zaposlenog na otoku dali su muzeju usmene povijesti, dnevnike i fotografije, a taj je materijal dostupan za istraživanje u muzejskoj arhivi i muzejskoj zbirci.

Medicinska sestra, izvan odjeljenja za zarazne bolesti, s nekim pacijentima

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Šešir inspektora Imigracijske službe Sjedinjenih Država

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Obrada useljavanja na otoku Ellis ostavila je neizbrisiv trag na sve useljenike, od njihovog dolaska do, nadamo se, odlaska s otoka do novih života u Sjedinjenim Državama. Muzej pokušava nabaviti artefakte koji su bili povezani s tim procesom. Uniforme imigracijske službe, inspekcijske kartice i kartice za provjeru pismenosti razvijene kao odgovor na Zakon o useljavanju (pismenosti) iz 1917. govore o povijesti doseljeničkog iskustva na otoku Ellis.

Preglednica iz S.S. Antonia, 5. veljače 1925. godine

Služba nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Ispitna kartica pismenosti iz Ureda za tisak Vlade Sjedinjenih Država, c. 1920 -ih

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Obrada useljavanja na otoku Ellis opala je nakon usvajanja Zakona o kvotama iz 1924. koji je nametnuo stroge zakone o useljavanju. Rad koji je obavljen na otoku Ellis nakon ovog zakona više se fokusirao na pritvaranje i deportaciju ljudi iz Sjedinjenih Država.

Znak istaknut na otoku Ellis

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Grafiti iscrtani na gipsanim zidovima otoka Ellis

Služba Nacionalnog parka, Kip slobode NM

Ljudi koji su držani u pritvoru tijekom povijesti otoka Ellis često su izražavali svoje osjećaje pišući po zidovima svojih soba. Neki od ovih grafita sačuvani su i dokumentirani u muzejskoj zbirci.


Sadržaj

Ustav Sjedinjenih Država usvojen je 17. rujna 1787. Članak I, odjeljak 8, stavak 4 Ustava izričito daje Kongresu Sjedinjenih Država ovlaštenje za uspostavljanje jedinstvenog pravila naturalizacije. [1]

U skladu s tom moći, Kongres je 1790. donio prvi zakon o naturalizaciji za Sjedinjene Države, Zakon o naturalizaciji iz 1790. Zakon je omogućio onima koji su boravili u zemlji dvije godine, a godinu dana zadržali svoje trenutno prebivalište za državljanstvo. Međutim, ograničila je naturalizaciju na "slobodne bijele osobe" "dobrog moralnog karaktera".

Zakon o naturalizaciji iz 1795. povećao je zahtjev za prebivalištem na pet godina boravka i dodao zahtjev da se tri godine obavijesti o namjeri podnošenja zahtjeva za državljanstvo, a Zakon o naturalizaciji iz 1798. dodatno je povećao uvjet boravka na 14 godina i zahtijevao je pet godina otkaza namjera podnošenja zahtjeva za državljanstvo.

Zakon o naturalizaciji iz 1802. ukinuo je i zamijenio Zakon o naturalizaciji iz 1798. godine.

Četrnaesti amandman, temeljen na Zakonu o građanskim pravima iz 1866., donesen je 1868. godine kako bi se bivšim robovima omogućilo državljanstvo. Zakon iz 1866. glasio je: "Sve osobe rođene u Sjedinjenim Državama i koje nisu podložne nikakvoj stranoj moći, isključujući Indijance koji nisu oporezovani, ovime se proglašavaju državljanima Sjedinjenih Država i takvim građanima, svih rasa i boja, bez obzira na svi prethodni uvjeti ropstva ili prisilnog ropstva "imat će ista prava" kao i bijeli građani. Fraza u Četrnaestom amandmanu preinačila je uvjetnu klauzulu koja glasi: "Sve osobe rođene ili naturalizirane u Sjedinjenim Državama, podložne njihovoj nadležnosti, državljani su Sjedinjenih Država i države u kojoj imaju prebivalište." To je Vrhovni sud primijenio u slučaju 1898. godine Sjedinjene Američke Države protiv Wong Kim Arka baviti se djetetom kineskih državljana koji su legalno boravili u SAD -u u vrijeme njegova rođenja, s iznimkama kao što su djeca diplomata i američkih Indijanaca. Pogledajte članke jus soli (mjesto rođenja) i jus sanguinis (krvna linija) za daljnju raspravu.

1870. zakon je proširen kako bi se omogućilo naturaliziranje crnaca. [2] Azijski imigranti bili su isključeni iz naturalizacije, ali ne i iz života u Sjedinjenim Državama. Postojala su i značajna ograničenja za neke Azijate na državnoj razini u Kaliforniji, na primjer, Azijci koji nisu državljani nisu smjeli posjedovati zemlju.

Prvi savezni zakon koji je ograničavao useljavanje bio je Page Page Act, donesen 1875. Zabranjivao je useljenicima koji se smatraju "nepoželjnima", definirajući to kao osobu iz istočne Azije koja je dolazila u Sjedinjene Države da bude prisilni radnik, bilo koju istočnoazijsku ženu koja bi bave se prostitucijom i svi ljudi koji se smatraju osuđenicima u svojoj zemlji. U praksi je to uglavnom rezultiralo zabranom ulaska kineskim ženama.

Nakon useljavanja 123 000 Kineza 1870 -ih, koji su se pridružili 105 000 imigranata između 1850. i 1870, Kongres je 1882. donio Zakon o isključenju Kine koji je ograničio daljnje useljavanje Kineza. Kinezi su emigrirali u zapadne Sjedinjene Države kao rezultat nerešenih uvjeta u Kini, dostupnosti poslova na željeznici i Zlatne groznice koja se u to vrijeme događala u Kaliforniji. Izraz "žuta opasnost" postao je popularan u to vrijeme.

Taj je zakon deset godina isključio kineske radnike iz useljavanja u Sjedinjene Države i bio je to prvi imigracijski zakon koji je usvojio Kongres. Radnici u Sjedinjenim Državama i radnici s radnim vizama dobili su potvrdu o prebivalištu te im je bilo dopušteno putovati u i izvan Sjedinjenih Država. Izmjenama i dopunama iz 1884. pooštrene su odredbe koje su dozvoljavale prethodnim imigrantima odlazak i povratak, te pojašnjeno da se zakon primjenjuje na etničke Kineze bez obzira na njihovu zemlju porijekla. Akt je obnovljen 1892. Geary Actom na još deset godina, a 1902. bez konačnog datuma. Ukinut je 1943., iako se veliko useljenje Kineza dogodilo tek 1965. [ potreban je citat ]

State Department Japanskog carstva pregovarao je o takozvanom džentlmenskom sporazumu 1907. godine, protokolu u kojem je Japan pristao prestati izdavati putovnice svojim građanima koji su htjeli emigrirati u Sjedinjene Države. U praksi je japanska vlada napravila kompromis sa svojim budućim emigrantima i nastavila davati putovnice teritoriju Havaja na kojem je živjelo mnogo Japanaca. Jednom na Havajima, Japancima je bilo lako nastaviti put do japanskih naselja na zapadnoj obali ako su to željeli. U desetljeću od 1901. do 1910. 129.000 Japanaca emigriralo je u kontinentalne Sjedinjene Države ili na Havaje, gotovo svi su bili muškarci, a na petogodišnje ugovore o radu, a još 117.000 došlo je u desetljećima od 1911. do 1930. Koliko ih je ostalo, a koliko se vratilo na kraju njihovih ugovora nije poznato, no procjenjuje se da se vratilo oko polovice. Ponovno je ovaj imigrantski tok bio najmanje 80% muškaraca i gotovo odmah se pojavila potražnja za imigrantkinjama iz Japana. Tu su potrebu djelomično zadovoljile takozvane "supruge razglednica" koje su emigrirale novim muževima koji su ih odabrali na temelju njihovih slika (slični su se brakovi također događali u gotovo svim kulturama na zapadu bez žena). Japanska vlada je 1920 -ih konačno prestala izdavati putovnice za teritorij Havaja za slobodne žene.

Kongres je također zabranio osobe zbog lošeg zdravlja ili nedostatka obrazovanja. Zakon iz 1882. zabranio je ulazak "luđacima" i prijenosnicima zaraznih bolesti. Nakon što je predsjednika Williama McKinleyja ubio anarhist imigrantskog porijekla, Kongres je 1903. donio Zakon o isključenju anarhista kako bi isključio poznate anarhističke agitatore. [3] Upis o useljeništvu iz 1917. dodan je uvjet pismenosti.

Uređivanje 1920 -ih

1921. Kongres Sjedinjenih Država donio je Zakon o kvotama za hitne slučajeve, kojim su utvrđene nacionalne useljeničke kvote. Kvote su se temeljile na broju stranaca rođenih stanovnika svake nacionalnosti koji su živjeli u Sjedinjenim Državama od popisa stanovništva 1910. godine. [4]

Ključni slučaj Vrhovnog suda iz 1923 Sjedinjene Američke Države protiv Bhagat Singh Thinda stvorio je službeni stav za klasifikaciju južnoazijskih Indijanaca kao nebijelaca, što je u to vrijeme dopuštalo da se Indijancima koji su već bili naturalizirani retroaktivno oduzme državljanstvo nakon što su tužitelji tvrdili da su državljanstvo stekli nezakonito. [5] Kalifornijski zakon o zemljištu za vanzemaljce iz 1913. (poništen 1952. državom u Sei Fujii protiv Kalifornije, 38 Cal. 2d 718) i drugi slični zakoni zabranili su strancima posjedovanje zemljišne imovine, čime su Indijancima Amerikanci zapravo oduzeli pravo na zemljište. Odluka je umanjila zahtjeve Azijske lige za isključenje i sve veće negodovanje zbog takozvane Turbanske plime/Hindoo invazije [sic] i "Žuta opasnost". Iako je novije zakonodavstvo pod utjecajem pokreta za građanska prava uklonilo velik dio statutarne diskriminacije Azijata, niti jedan slučaj nije poništio klasifikaciju Indijanaca kao bijelaca.

Složeniji plan kvota, Nacionalna formula o podrijetlu, zamijenio je ovaj sustav „hitnih slučajeva“ prema Imigracijskom zakonu iz 1924. (Johnson-Reed Act), koji je postavio kvote na broj useljenika s istočne hemisfere, a učinkovito je zabranio svako useljavanje iz Azije. . [6] [7] Upotrijebljeni referentni popis promijenjen je na popis iz 1890. godine [7], što je uvelike smanjilo broj useljenika iz južne i istočne Europe. Za istočnu hemisferu postavljen je godišnji limit od 154.227.

Zakon iz 1929. dodao je odredbe za ranije deportirane, koji bi, 60 dana nakon što je akt stupio na snagu, bili osuđeni za teško krivično djelo bez obzira na to je li se njihova deportacija dogodila prije ili nakon donošenja zakona. [8]

1930 -ih -50 -ih godina Uređivanje

Godine 1932. predsjednik Hoover i State Department u biti su zatvorili useljavanje tijekom Velike depresije jer je imigracija porasla sa 236.000 1929. na 23.000 1933. To je bilo popraćeno dobrovoljnom repatrijacijom u Europu i Meksiko te prisilnom repatrijacijom i deportacijom između 500.000 i 2 milijuna Meksički Amerikanci, uglavnom građani, u meksičkoj repatrijaciji. Ukupna imigracija u desetljeću od 1931. do 1940. iznosila je 528.000 u prosjeku manje od 53.000 godišnje.

Kineski zakoni o isključenju poništeni su 1943. Zakon Luce -Celler iz 1946. okončao je diskriminaciju indijanskih Amerikanaca i Filipinaca, kojima je priznato pravo na naturalizaciju, i dopustio kvotu od 100 imigranata godišnje.

Zakon o useljavanju i državljanstvu iz 1952. (McCarran-Walter Act) ponovno je revidirao kvote, temeljeći ih na popisu iz 1920. godine. Po prvi put u američkoj povijesti rasne razlike izostavljene su iz američkog zakona. Kao što se moglo i očekivati, većina dodijeljenih kvota otišla je useljenicima iz Irske, Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva i Njemačke koji su već imali rodbinu u Sjedinjenim Državama. [ potreban je citat ] Anti-subverzivne značajke ovog zakona još su na snazi. [ potreban je citat ]

1960 -e Edit

Izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o useljavanju i državljanstvu iz 1965. (Zakon o Hart-Celleru) ukinut je sustav kvota nacionalnog podrijetla. Prvi je put bilo ograničenje useljavanja na zapadnu hemisferu (120.000 godišnje), pri čemu je istočna hemisfera bila ograničena na 170.000. Zakon je promijenio sustav povlaštenih useljenika. Konkretno, zakon je davao prednost imigrantima sa vještinama potrebnim za radnu snagu SAD -a, izbjeglicama i tražiteljima azila, kao i članovima obitelji američkih državljana. Ponovno okupljanje obitelji postalo je kamen temeljac zakona. Tada je tadašnji predsjednik Pododbora za useljavanje u Senatu Edward Kennedy primijetio da "prijedlog zakona neće preplaviti naše gradove imigrantima. Neće poremetiti etničku mješavinu našeg društva. Neće ublažiti standarde prijema. neće uzrokovati da američki radnici izgube posao. " (Senat SAD -a, Pododbor za useljavanje i naturalizaciju Odbora za pravosuđe, Washington, DC, 10. veljače 1965. str. 1–3.)

Uredite 1980 -ih

Zakon o izbjeglicama iz 1980. uspostavio je politiku prema izbjeglicama, redefinirajući "izbjeglice" prema normama Ujedinjenih naroda. Cilj za izbjeglice postavljen je na 50.000, a svjetska gornja granica za imigrante smanjena je na 270.000 godišnje.

1986. donesen je Zakon o reformi i kontroli useljavanja (IRCA) kojim su po prvi put stvorene kazne za poslodavce koji su svjesno angažirali imigrante bez dokumenata. IRCA je također sadržavala amnestiju za oko 3 milijuna imigranata bez dokumenata koji su već u Sjedinjenim Državama i naložila intenziviranje nekih aktivnosti granične patrole Sjedinjenih Država ili INS -a (sada dio Ministarstva unutarnje sigurnosti).

Uređivanje 1990 -ih

Američko povjerenstvo za imigracijsku reformu, predvođeno bivšom predstavnicom Barbarom Jordan, radilo je od 1990. do 1997. Komisija je pokrivala mnoge aspekte imigracijske politike, ali je polazila od percepcije da se "vjerodostojnost imigracijske politike može mjeriti jednostavnim mjerilom: ljudi koji bi trebali ući, ući ljudi koji ne bi trebali ući, drže se vani, a ljudi za koje se procijeni da su deportirani moraju otići ". [9] Odatle je u nizu od četiri izvješća povjerenstvo sagledalo sve aspekte imigracijske politike. [10] U prvom je utvrđeno da je provedba slaba i da je potrebno poboljšanje na granici i interno. Za internu provedbu, preporučeno je stvaranje automatiziranog sustava provjere zaposlenosti koji će poslodavcima omogućiti razlikovanje legalnih i ilegalnih radnika. Drugo izvješće raspravljalo je o pitanjima legalnog useljavanja i sugeriralo da članovi uže obitelji i kvalificirani radnici imaju prioritet. Treće izvješće pokrivalo je pitanja izbjeglica i azila. Konačno, četvrto izvješće ponovilo je glavne točke prethodnih izvješća i potrebu za novom imigracijskom politikom. Nekoliko ovih prijedloga je provedeno.

Zakon o useljavanju iz 1990. (IMMACT) izmijenio je i proširio akt iz 1965. značajno je povećao ukupnu granicu useljavanja na 700.000 i povećao vize za 40 posto. Ponovno okupljanje obitelji zadržano je kao glavni imigracijski kriterij, sa značajnim povećanjem useljavanja povezanih s zapošljavanjem.

Nekoliko zakona potpisanih 1996. označilo je zaokret prema oštrijoj politici i za legalne i za ilegalne imigrante. Zakon o borbi protiv terorizma i učinkovite smrtne kazne (AEDPA) i Zakon o reformi ilegalne imigracije i odgovornosti useljenika (IIRIRA) uvelike su povećali kategorije kriminalnih aktivnosti zbog kojih se useljenici, uključujući nositelje zelenih kartona, mogu deportirati i odrediti im obvezni pritvor za određene vrste slučajeva deportacije . Kao rezultat toga, više od 2 milijuna pojedinaca deportirano je od 1996. [11]

Teroristički napadi 11. rujna 2001. utjecali su na američke poglede na mnoga pitanja, uključujući imigraciju. Ukupno je sudjelovalo 20 stranih terorista, od kojih je 19 sudjelovalo u napadima u kojima je poginulo 2.977 žrtava, od kojih su većina bili civili. Teroristi su u Sjedinjene Države ušli s turističkim ili studentskim vizama. Četvorica su, međutim, prekršila uvjete svojih viza. Napad je otkrio dugotrajne slabosti u imigracijskom sustavu SAD-a, uključujući greške u područjima obrade viza, unutarnje provedbe i razmjene informacija. [12]

Zakon o stvarnoj identifikaciji iz 2005. promijenio je neka ograničenja za vize, pooštrio ograničenja u zahtjevima za azil i olakšao isključenje osumnjičenih terorista te uklonio ograničenja u izgradnji graničnih ograda.

Godine 2005. senatori John McCain i Ted Kennedy oživjeli su raspravu o sveobuhvatnoj imigracijskoj reformi prijedlogom Zakona o sigurnoj Americi i uređenoj imigraciji, koji uključuje legalizaciju, programe gastarbajtera i pojačanu sigurnost granica. Zakon nikada nije izglasan u Senatu, ali su dijelovi uključeni u kasnije prijedloge Senata.

Zastupnički dom i Senat 2006. godine izradili su vlastite, sukobljene prijedloge zakona. U prosincu 2005. godine Dom je donio Zakon o zaštiti granica, antiterorističkoj i ilegalnoj kontroli useljenika iz 2005., čiji je sponzor bio zastupnik James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Djelo je bilo ograničeno na provedbu i bilo je usredotočeno na granicu i unutrašnjost. U Senatu, senator Arlen Spectre (R-PA) sponzorirao je Sveobuhvatni zakon o imigracijskoj reformi iz 2006. (CIRA), a izglasao ga je u svibnju 2006. CIRA bi dala put do konačnog državljanstva većini useljenika bez dokumenata zemlje, kao i dramatično povećano legalno useljavanje. Iako su prijedlozi zakona prošli u njihovim komorama, nije došlo do kompromisnog prijedloga zakona. [13]

Godine 2007. u Senatu se raspravljalo o Zakonu o sveobuhvatnoj reformi useljavanja iz 2007. godine, koji bi velikoj većini ilegalnih ulazaka u zemlju dao put do konačnog državljanstva, značajno povećao legalnu imigraciju i povećao provedbu zakona. Prijedlog zakona nije prošao glasanje, u osnovi ga je ubio. [14]

Pojedinačne komponente različitih reformskih paketa zasebno su uvedene i nastavljene na Kongresu. DREAM Act je prijedlog zakona koji je inicijalno uveden 2001. godine, ugrađen u različite prijedloge sveobuhvatnih reformi, a zatim je zasebno ponovno uveden 2009. i 2010. Zakon bi omogućio legalno prebivalište i put do državljanstva useljenicima bez dokumenata koji završe američke srednje škole i pohađaju fakultetu ili se pridružite vojsci.

Granice useljeničkih viza koje je odredio Kongres ostaju na 700.000 za kombinirane kategorije zaposlenja, obiteljske sklonosti i neposrednu obitelj. Postoje dodatne odredbe o raznolikosti i mali broj posebnih viza. U 2008. imigracija u tim kategorijama iznosila je nešto manje od 750.000, a slični su iznosi (što predstavlja maksimum dopušten od strane Kongresa) posljednjih godina zbrojeni. [15]

Brojevi naturalizacije kretali su se od oko 500.000 do nešto više od 1.000.000 godišnje od početka 1990 -ih, s vrhunskim godinama 1996. i 2008. oko 1 040 000. Ti se brojevi zbrajaju s većim brojem viza izdanih tih godina jer je čak 2,7 milijuna onih kojima je IRCA 1986. odobrila amnestiju prešlo ili će se pretvoriti u državljanstvo. [16] Općenito, useljenici stječu pravo na državljanstvo nakon pet godina boravka. Mnogi se ne prijavljuju odmah ili ne prođu test u prvom pokušaju. To znači da će se brojevi za vize i brojevi za naturalizaciju uvijek micati, iako se dugoročno naturalizacije zbrajaju nešto manje od viza.

Ovi su brojevi odvojeni od ilegalne imigracije, koja je dosegla vrhunac od vjerojatno više od 1 milijun godišnje oko 2000. godine, a vjerojatno se do 2009. smanjila na oko 500.000 godišnje, što se čini usporedivim ili možda manje od odljeva koji se vraća u njihove zemlje. [17] Neke od kategorija legalnih useljenika mogu uključivati ​​bivše ilegalne imigrante koji su bili u tijeku po pravnim prijavama i prošli provjere prošlosti te osobe su uključene u broj legalnih viza, a ne kao zaseban ili dodatni broj.

Za Meksiko i Filipine, jedine kategorije useljeničkih viza koje su dostupne u praksi su one za neposredno ovisnu obitelj američkih državljana. Osobe koje su se prijavile od 1994. nisu bile u kategorijama za odraslu djecu i braću i sestre, a trendovi pokazuju da se ti podaci vjerojatno neće promijeniti. Zapravo, trend se u posljednje vrijeme kreće u suprotnom smjeru. Imigrantske radne vize kasne oko 6 do 8 godina za sadašnjim. [ potrebno pojašnjenje ] [ potreban je citat ] Iako vlada ne objavljuje podatke o broju neriješenih zahtjeva, dokazi pokazuju da zaostaci u tim kategorijama smanjuju godišnje kvote.

Legalne imigracijske vize ne treba miješati s privremenim radnim dozvolama. Dozvole za sezonski rad (oko 285.000 u 2008.) ili studente (oko 917.000 u 2008.) [18] općenito ne dopuštaju prelazak u imigrantski status. Čak i oni koji su zakonski ovlašteni za privremeni rad u Sjedinjenim Državama (kao što su radnici H1-B) moraju se zasebno prijaviti za stalni boravak i nemaju nikakvu prednost od odobrenja za privremeno zapošljavanje. To nije za razliku od mnogih drugih zemalja, čiji zakoni predviđaju stalni boravak nakon određenog broja godina legalnog zaposlenja. Privremeni radnici, dakle, ne čine izrazito brojni izvor useljavanja. [19]

Podržite naš Zakon o provedbi zakona i sigurnom susjedstvu iz 2010. (Arizona SB 1070) Uredi

U skladu s Arizonom SB 1070, donesenom 2010. godine, državni je prekršaj za useljenike da ne nose svoje imigracijske dokumente na sebi dok su u Arizoni, a osobe koje zaustavi ili uhiti državna policija iz bilo kojeg razloga mogu biti podložne provjeri njihovog useljenja status. Državni ili lokalni dužnosnici i agencije Arizone ne mogu ograničiti provedbu saveznih zakona o useljavanju. Svi koji skrivaju, zapošljavaju ili prevoze imigrante bez dokumenata podliježu kazni.

Zakon o sigurnosti granica, ekonomskim mogućnostima i modernizaciji useljavanja 2013. (S.744) Uredi

17. travnja 2013. takozvana "Osam bandi" u Senatu Sjedinjenih Država predstavila je S.744, dugo očekivanu senatsku verziju prijedloga zakona o imigracijskoj reformi predloženog u Kongresu. [20] Tekst predloženog zakona odmah je objavljen na web stranici senatora Charlesa Schumera. Senat je 27. lipnja 2013. usvojio prijedlog zakona sa maržom 68-32. Zastupnički dom Sjedinjenih Država nije prihvatio prijedlog zakona. [21]

Izvršne radnje Uredi

Dana 21. studenog 2014. predsjednik Barack Obama potpisao je dvije izvršne radnje koje su imale za posljedicu odgađanje deportacije milijuna ilegalnih imigranata. Nalozi se odnose na roditelje državljana Sjedinjenih Država (Odgođena akcija za roditelje Amerikanaca) i mlade ljude koji su u zemlju dovedeni ilegalno (Odgođena akcija za dolaske u djetinjstvo). [22]


Kako su se američki useljenički zakoni i pravila mijenjali kroz povijest

Sjedinjene Američke Države počele su regulirati useljavanje ubrzo nakon što su stekle neovisnost od Velike Britanije, a zakoni od donošenja odražavaju tadašnju politiku i migrantske tokove. Rani zakoni nametali su ograničenja koja su favorizirala Europljane, ali opsežni zakon iz 1965. otvorio je vrata useljenicima iz drugih dijelova svijeta. Posljednjih godina zakone i predsjedničke radnje oblikovali su zabrinutost zbog izbjeglica, neovlaštene imigracije i terorizma.

Zakon iz 1790. prvi je odredio tko može postati građanin, ograničavajući tu privilegiju na slobodne bijelce "dobrog moralnog karaktera" koji su živjeli u SAD -u najmanje dvije godine. 1870. pravo državljanstva prošireno je na one afričkog podrijetla.

Isprobajte naš tečaj o useljavanju putem e -pošte

Saznajte o imigraciji iz SAD -a kroz pet kratkih lekcija koje vam se svaki drugi dan isporučuju u pristiglu poštu.
Prijavi se sad!

Počevši od 1875. godine donesen je niz ograničenja useljavanja. Uključivale su zabrane kriminalaca, ljudi sa zaraznim bolestima, poligamiste, anarhiste, prosjake i uvoznike prostitutki. Druga ograničenja usmjerena su na sve veći broj azijskih imigranata, prvo ograničavajući migracije iz Kine, a kasnije i zabranu useljavanja iz većine azijskih zemalja.

Do ranih 1900 -ih, prevladavajući imigracijski tok u zemlji odmaknuo se od nacija sjeverne i zapadne Europe prema južnoj i istočnoj Europi. Kao odgovor, zakoni su doneseni 1921. i 1924. godine kako bi se pokušali vratiti raniji imigracijski obrasci ograničavanjem ukupne godišnje imigracije i nametanjem brojčanih kvota na temelju imigrantske nacionalnosti koje su favorizirale sjeverne i zapadne europske zemlje.

Dugotrajna imigracijska ograničenja počela su se urušavati 1943. godine, kada je zakon dopustio imigraciju ograničenom broju Kineza. Godine 1952. zakonodavstvo je dopuštalo ograničen broj viza za ostale Azijate, a rasa je formalno uklonjena kao razlog za isključenje. Iako je predsjedničko povjerenstvo preporučilo ukidanje sustava kvota nacionalnog podrijetla, Kongres se nije pridržavao.

Međutim, 1965. godine kombinacija političkih, društvenih i geopolitičkih čimbenika dovela je do donošenja značajnog Zakona o useljavanju i državljanstvu koji je stvorio novi sustav koji daje prednost ponovnom okupljanju obitelji i vještim useljenicima, a ne kvotama za zemlje. Zakon je također nametnuo prva ograničenja useljavanja sa zapadne hemisfere. Prije toga Latinoamerikancima je bio dopušten ulazak u SAD bez mnogo ograničenja. Od donošenja Zakona o useljavanju i državljanstvu 1965., useljavanjem su dominirali ljudi rođeni u Aziji i Latinskoj Americi, a ne u Europi.

Nekoliko zakona od tada se fokusiralo na izbjeglice, otvarajući put za ulazak Indokineskih izbjeglica koji su bježali od ratnog nasilja 1970 -ih, a kasnije su uključivali i pomoć za druge nacionalnosti, uključujući Kineze, Nikaragvce i Haićance. Zakon iz 1990. stvorio je "privremeni zaštitni status" koji je štitio useljenike, uglavnom srednjoameričke, od deportacije u zemlje suočene s prirodnim katastrofama, oružanim sukobima ili drugim izvanrednim uvjetima.

1986. Kongres je donio još jedan veliki zakon - Zakon o reformi i kontroli useljavanja - koji je legalizirao milijune neovlaštenih useljenika, uglavnom iz Latinske Amerike, koji su ispunili određene uvjete. Zakon je također uveo sankcije poslodavcima koji su zaposlili neovlaštene useljenike. Naknadni zakoni iz 1996., 2002. i 2006. bili su odgovori na zabrinutost zbog terorizma i neovlaštenog useljavanja. Ove mjere naglasile su kontrolu granica, dale prioritet provedbi zakona o zapošljavanju imigranata i pooštrile uvjete za prijem.


Stalni izvor rasprave

Tijekom 1980 -ih i 1990 -ih, ilegalna imigracija bila je stalni izvor političkih rasprava, jer imigranti i dalje pristižu u Sjedinjene Države, uglavnom kopnenim putevima kroz Kanadu i Meksiko. Zakon o imigracijskoj reformi iz 1986. pokušao je riješiti to pitanje pružanjem bolje provedbe imigracijske politike i stvaranjem više mogućnosti za traženje legalnog useljavanja. Zakon je uključivao dva programa amnestije za neovlaštene strance i kolektivno je amnestirao više od 3 milijuna ilegalnih stranaca. Još jedan imigracijski zakon, Zakon o useljavanju iz 1990., izmijenio je i proširio akt iz 1965., povećavajući ukupnu razinu useljavanja na 700.000. Zakon je također predviđao prijem imigranata iz “podzastupljenih ” zemalja radi povećanja raznolikosti useljeničkog toka.

Ekonomska recesija koja je zemlju zahvatila početkom 1990-ih bila je popraćena ponovnim pojavom antimigrantskog osjećaja, uključujući među Amerikancima s nižim primanjima koji su se natjecali za poslove s imigrantima koji su spremni raditi za niže plaće. 1996. Kongres je usvojio Zakon o reformi ilegalne imigracije i odgovornosti useljenika koji se bavio provođenjem granica i upotrebom socijalnih programa od strane imigranata.


Imigracijska kvota nametnuta - povijest

Veliki prijem izbjeglica dogodio se izvan nacionalnog sustava kvota o podrijetlu tijekom 1950 -ih. Zakon o pomoći izbjeglicama (RRA) od 7. kolovoza 1953. i izmjene i dopune iz kolovoza 1954. odobrile su prihvat 214.000 izbjeglica iz ratom razorene Europe i bjegunaca iz zemalja okupiranih od komunista. Trideset posto priznanja tijekom trajanja Zakona bili su Talijani, a slijedili su ih Nijemci, Jugoslaveni i Grci.

The RRA originated as an Administration bill, and combined humanitarian concern for the refugees and escapees with international political considerations. Quoting from President Eisenhower's letter which accompanied the draft legislation:

"These refugees, escapees, and distressed peoples now constitute an economic and political threat of constantly growing magnitude. They look to traditional American humanitarian concern for the oppressed. International political considerations are also factors which are involved. We should take reasonable steps to help these people to the extent that we share the obligation of the free world."

In particular, the inclusion of the category of escapees from communist domination in this and subsequent refugee legislation reflected the preoccupations of this Cold War period. This concern was also a major factor in the admission of refugees from the unsuccessful Hungarian revolution of October 1956. A total of 38,000 Hungarian refugees were eventually admitted to the United States, 6,130 with RRA visas and the remainder under the parole provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Act of September 11, 1957, sometimes referred to as the Refugee-Escapee Act, provided for the admission of certain aliens who were eligible under the terms of the Refugee Relief Act, as well as refugee-escapees, defined as persons fleeing persecution in Communist countries or countries in the Middle East. This was the basis for the definition of refugee incorporated in the INA from 1965 until 1980. A total of 29,000 entered under the temporary 1957 refugee provisions, led by Hungarians, Koreans, Yugoslavs, and Chinese.

During the 1960s, refugees from persecution in communist-dominated countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and from countries in the Middle East continued to be admitted, first under the Fair Share Law, enacted July 14, 1960, and subsequently under the INA. About 19,700 refugees entered under the 1960 legislation. Its primary purpose was to enable the United States to participate in an international effort to close the refugee camps which had been in operation in Europe since the end of World War II. U.S. participation was limited to one-fourth of the total number resettled.

Cuban refugees began entering the United States with the fall of the Batista government and the subsequent communist takeover in 1959, and continued throughout the 1960s and, in smaller numbers, during the 1970s. Approximately 700,000 Cuban refugees had entered the United States prior to a new influx which began in April 1980. The United States has accepted the Cubans as refugees from communism through a variety of legal means.

The INA Amendments of 1965 and their Aftermath

The October 1965 amendments to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) repealed the national origins quota system and represented the most far-reaching revision of immigration policy in the United States since the First Quota Act of 1921. In place of nationality and ethnic considerations, the INA amendments (P.L. 89 236 79 Stat. 911) substituted a system based primarily on reunification of families and needed skills.

The circumstances which led to this major shift in policy in 1965 were a complex combination of changing public perceptions and values, politics, and legislative compromise. It can be argued that the 1965 immigration legislation was as much a product of the mid-1960s and the heavily Democratic 89th Congress which also produced major civil rights legislation, as the 1952 Act had been a product of the Cold War period of the early 1950s.

The 1965 amendments adopted an annual ceiling on Eastern Hemisphere immigration of 170,000 and a 20,000 per country limit. Within these restrictions, immigrant visas were distributed according to a seven-category preference system placing priority on family reunification, attracting needed skills, and refugees. The 1965 law also provided that effective July 1, 1968, Western Hemisphere immigration would be limited by an annual ceiling of 120,000 without per-country limits or a preference system.

The INA Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-571 90 Stat. 2703) extended to the Western Hemisphere the 20,000 per-country limit and a slightly modified version of the seven category preference system. Legislation enacted in 1978 (P.L. 95 412 92 Stat. 907) combined the separate ceilings into a single worldwide ceiling of 290,000 with a single preference system. The Refugee Act of 1980 (P.L. 96 212 94 Stat. 102) eliminated refugees as a category of the preference system, and set the worldwide ceiling at 270,000, exclusive of refugees.

Since 1965, the major source of immigration to the United States has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia, reversing the trend since the founding of the nation. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Europe accounted for 50 percent of U.S. immigration during the decade fiscal years 1955 to 1964, followed by North America at 35 percent, and Asia at eight percent. In fiscal year 1988, Asia was highest at 41 percent, followed by North America at 39 percent, and Europe at 10 percent. In order, the countries exceeding 20,000 immigrants in fiscal year 1988 were Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti, Korea, India, mainland China, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and Jamaica.

These figures reflect a shift in both accessibility and conditions in the sending countries. For example, Asian immigration, which was severely limited prior to the 1965 amendments, subsequently has been augmented by the large number of Indochinese refugees adjusting to immigrant status outside the numerical limits. On the other hand, Irish immigration fell from 6,307 in fiscal year 1964 to 1,839 in fiscal year 1986, with 734 entering under the preference system and the majority entering as the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Ireland had been heavily favored under the national origins quota system.

In more recent years, the above trend has largely continued. According to Pew Hispanic: “The regions of origin for immigrant populations residing in the U.S. have dramatically shifted since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. In 1960, 84% of immigrants living in the U.S. were born in Europe or Canada, while only 6% were from Mexico, 3.8% from South and East Asia, 3.5% from the rest of Latin America and 2.7% from other areas. Immigrant origins now [as of 2016] differ drastically, with European and Canadian immigrants making up only a small share of the foreign-born population (13.2%) in 2016. South and East Asians (26.9%), Mexicans (26.5%) and other Latin Americans (24.5%) each make up about a quarter of the U.S. immigrant population, followed by 8.9% who were born in another region.”

The proponents of the 1965 INA repeatedly assured American society that the amendment was far from radical. For instance, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) claimed:

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.

In reality, every single assurance Kennedy offered has been proven wrong by subsequent events. As FAIR President Dan Stein pointed out on its fiftieth anniversary:

By any objective standards, the 1965 Immigration Act would have to be considered an abject failure, and it is incumbent upon today’s leaders to fix a law that has produced countless unintended consequences that threaten our nation’s future (…). The law has resulted in reckless population growth, growing dependence of the social welfare system, and overwhelmed the country’s capacity to assimilate immigrants and their children into the social, cultural and economic mainstream.

Immigration History: The 1970s to the Present

The 1970s through 1990s: Immigration Issues, Review, and Revision

The patterns of immigration and the policy considerations relating to it in the 1970s resembled in some respects those of the 1950s after the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In both decades, the entry of aliens outside the provisions of the basic law--both illegally as undocumented aliens, and legally as refugees was increasingly the dominant pattern in immigration and the basis for the major issues confronting the Congress. Legislative response to the issue of refugees in 1980 and undocumented aliens in 1986 was followed in 1987 by a shift in congressional attention to legal immigration.

The 1981 report of the national Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy contributed to congressional review of immigration issues. The sixteen-member Commission was created by legislation enacted in 1978 to study and evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. Its basic conclusion was that controlled immigration had been and continued to be in the national interest, and this underlay many of its recommendations. The Commission's recommendations were summed up by Chairman Theodore Hesburgh in his introduction:

"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."

Refugees and the Refugee Act of 1980

Between 1975 and 1980, refugees and refugee-related issues dominated congressional concern with immigration more than they had since the years following World War II. Beginning with the fall of Vietnam and Cambodia to the communists in April 1975, this five-year period saw the admission of more than 400,000 Indochinese refugees, the enactment of major amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act in the form of the Refugee Act of 1980, and the exodus from Mariel Harbor, Cuba, to southern Florida.

The 1980 refugee legislation was enacted in part in response to Congress’s increasing frustration with the difficulty of dealing with the ongoing large-scale Indochinese refugee flow under the existing ad hoc refugee admission and resettlement mechanisms. By the end of the 1970s, a consensus had been reached that a more coherent and equitable approach to refugee admission and resettlement was needed. The result was the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act contained in the Refugee Act of 1980, enacted on March 17, 1980 (P.L. 96-212 94 Stat. 102).

The Refugee Act repealed the limitations which had previously favored refugees fleeing communism or from countries in the Middle East and redefined refugee to conform to the definition used in the United Nations Protocol and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The term refugee is now defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act as a person who is unwilling or unable to return to his country of nationality or habitual residence because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1980 amendments made provision for both a regular flow and the emergency admission of refugees, following legislatively prescribed consultation with the Congress. In addition, the law authorized federal assistance for the resettlement of refugees.

Shortly after the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, large numbers of Cubans entered the United States through southern Florida, totaling an estimated 125,000, along with continuing smaller numbers of Haitians. The Carter Administration was unwilling to classify either group as refugee, and no action was taken on the special legislation sought by the Administration. Beginning in 1984, the Reagan Administration adjusted the majority of the Cubans to lawful permanent resident status under P.L. 89 732, 1966 legislation enacted in response to the Cuban refugee situation in the 1960s. However, the status of the Cuban/Haitian entrants was not resolved finally until enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which included special legalization provisions.

Illegal Immigration and the IRCA of 1986

Immigration legislation focusing on illegal immigration was considered and passed by the 99th Congress, and enacted as the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 P.L. 99-603 (November 6, 1986 100 Stat. 3359), consists primarily of amendments of the basic 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

Reform of the law relating to the control of illegal immigration had been under consideration for 15 years, i.e., since the early 1970s. The 1986 legislation marked the culmination of bipartisan efforts both by Congress and the executive branch under four Presidents. As an indication of the growing magnitude of the problem, the annual apprehension of undocumented aliens by the Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) increased from 505,949 in 1972, the first year legislation aimed at controlling illegal immigration received House action, to 1,767,400 in 1986. In 1987, after the adoption of IRCA, INS apprehensions dropped by a third to 1,190,488.

The prospect of employment in the United States is an economic magnet that draws aliens here illegally. The principal legislative remedy proposed in the past, and included in the new law, is employer sanctions, or penalties for employers who knowingly hire aliens unauthorized to work in the United States. In order to avoid a major law enforcement problem dealing with aliens who established roots here before the change in policy, a legalization program was established that provided legal status for otherwise eligible aliens who had been here illegally since prior to 1982. Second, the legislation sought to respond to the apparent heavy dependence of seasonal agriculture on illegal workers by creating a 7-year special agricultural worker program, and by streamlining the previously existing H-2 temporary worker program to expedite availability of alien workers and to provide statutory protections for U.S. and alien labor.

Overall, the 1986 amnesty was a failure because the number of illegal aliens in the United States has since quadrupled: from the approximately 3 million amnestied in 1986 to approximately 12.5 million in 2017.

Legal Immigration and the Immigration Act of 1990

After enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which adopted a major change in deterrence against illegal immigration, congressional attention shifted to legal immigration, including the 1965-adopted system of numerical limits on permanent immigration. This was an issue for a number of reasons. Concern had arisen over the greater number of immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification compared to the number of independent non-family immigrants, and over the limited number of visas available to certain countries under the preference system. There was also concern about the growing visa waiting lists (backlogs) under the existing preference system and about the admission of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens outside the numerical limits.

Major legislation addressing these concerns passed the Senate and was introduced in the House in the 100th Congress (1987 to 1988). However, only temporary legislation addressing limited concerns passed both, leaving further consideration of a full-scale revision of legal immigration to the 101st Congress.

The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90) was signed into law as P.L. 101-649 by President Bush on November 29, 1990. It constituted a major revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which remained the basic immigration law. Its primary focus was the numerical limits and preference system regulating permanent legal immigration. Besides legal immigration, the eight-title Act dealt with many other aspects of immigration law ranging from nonimmigrants to criminal aliens to naturalization.

The legal immigration changes included an increase in total immigration under an overall flexible cap, an increase in annual employment-based immigration from 54,000 to 140,000, and a permanent provision for the admission of "diversity immigrants" from "underrepresented" countries. The new system provided for a permanent annual level of approximately 700,000 during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Refugees were the only major group of aliens not included. The Act established a three-track preference system for family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity immigrants. Additionally, the Act significantly amended the work-related nonimmigrant categories for temporary admission.

IMMACT90 (P.L. 101-649) addressed a series of other issues. It provided undocumented Salvadorans with temporary protected status for a limited period of time, and amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the Attorney General to grant temporary protected status to nationals of designated countries subject to armed conflict or natural disasters. It also authorized a temporary stay of deportation and work authorization for eligible immediate family members of the IRCA-legalized aliens, and made 55,000 additional visas available for them annually during fiscal years 1992 to 1994.

As a response to criticism of employer sanctions, IMMACT90 expanded the anti-discrimination provisions of the IRCA, and increased the penalties for unlawful discrimination. It significantly revised the political and ideological grounds for exclusion and deportation which had been controversial since their enactment in 1952.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996)

Pozadina

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), enacted in 1996, resulted from the process of deliberating on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform established by President Clinton and the Congress to examine both legal and illegal immigration issues.

The Commission was chaired until her untimely death in 1996 by The Hon. Barbara C. Jordan who had served in the U.S. House of Representatives (D-TX) 1973-79, and was a professor at the Univ. of Texas-Austin 1979-96. The Commission's members included distinguished experts in immigration law and history and others with experience in national politics and business.

After a long and arduous effort to develop bipartisan legislation dealing with both reform of legal and illegal immigration, Congress narrowed its focus on illegal immigration provisions with a promise by many that they would return soon to the effort to reform legal immigration.

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in those who should be kept out, are kept out and those who should not be here will be required to leave. For the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."
(Barbara Jordan, February 24, 1995 Testimony to House Immigration Subcommittee)

The provisions of IIRAIRA were aimed at adopting stronger penalties against illegal immigration, streamlining the deportation (removal) process by curtailing the never-ending legal appeal process that was used by immigration lawyers to keep their clients in the United States until they found a sympathetic judge who would grand suspension of deportation (cancellation of removal). Other toughening provisions adopted in the same year aimed at curbing the ability of terrorists to use the immigration process to enter and operate in the United States and to restrict the use of public welfare benefits by new immigrants contrary to the intent of the immigration law.

"For our immigration policy to make sense, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it."
(Barbara Jordan, address to United We Stand, America Conference, Dallas, TX, August 12, 1995)


Immigration Act of 1921

Significance: The first federal law in U.S. history to limit the immigration of Europeans, the Immigration Act of 1921 reflected the growing American fear that people from southern and eastern European countries not only did not adapt well into American society but also threatened its very existence. The law specified that no more than 3 percent of the total number of immigrants from any specific country already living in the United States in 1910 could migrate to America during any year.

On May 19, 1921, the same day on which the law was passed by the U.S. Congress, recently inaugurated President Warren G. Harding signed the Emergency Quota Act into law. The premise of the act had been debated in the Congress for several years. Indeed, a version of the bill had passed during the previous session of Congress only to fall victim to a pocket veto by the ailing President Woodrow Wilson during the last days of his administration.

The bill was a product of the Dillingham Commission, which had been chartered in 1907 and was chaired by Representative William P. Dillingham of Vermont. It represented several versions, the latest of which had been created by Representative Albert Johnson ofWashington. Although concerns about undesirable immigration to the United States had been discussed for decades, and action had been taken to prevent the immigration of most Asians, fears springing out of the aftermath of World War I again bestirred those who would close the floodgates of immigration.

According to federal officials scattered throughout European consulates, literally millions of Europeans hoped to emigrate to the United States in the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918). Some of these would-be immigrants could be considered as coming from the "desirable” classes of western and northern European nations, but it appeared that the vast majority of the potential immigrants would be coming from southern and eastern Europe.

Many Americans held the perception that individuals from southern and eastern Europe could not be assimilated properly into the culture of the United States. Their languages, customs, and religions were thought to be too different from those of preceding generations of immigrants for fullscale integration into American culture. The fear was that these newer immigrants would always be "hyphenates,” or citizens who would call themselves, or be called by others, by such hyphenated names as "Polish-Americans,” "Greek-Americans,” and "Italian-Americans.”

Beyond the fear of being swamped by unassimilable immigrants from eastern and southern Europe was the fear that these immigrants’ increasing numbers would depress wages for American workers. In addition, some people feared the potential of the rising political power of the new class of immigrants. To counter the tide of uneducated, working- class immigrants, professionals were allowed to enter the United States with few restrictions, regardless of their nations of origin.

As signed into law, the 1921 bill required that no more than 3 percent of the number of persons from a nation living in the United States, as recorded in the census of 1910, could be admitted to the country in the forthcoming year. Taken to its ultimate understanding, the law allowed only about 357,000 people to immigrate to the United States during the 1922 fiscal year. Based on the 1910 population figures, the bill effectively limited emigration of northern and western Europeans to approximately 175,000 individuals. As this figure reflected almost precisely the numbers of immigrants from these regions during the years leading up to 1921, the bill had little impact on northern and western European immigration. The bill imposed no limitations on immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

The impact of the 1921 law on southern and eastern Europe was much different. Again basing its quotas on 1910 population figures, the bill effectively limited nations in these regions to about 175,000 individuals. However, in contrast to western and northern Europeans, immigrants from southern and eastern Europe had contributed approximately 685,000 persons during each of the years immediately prior to the passage of the 1921 law.

The bill was intended to be in effect for only a single year however, it was not replaced until 1924. The significance of the 1921 bill lies in the fact that it was the first time Americans had actively and legally sought to limit European immigration.

Briggs, Vernon M. Mass Immigration and the National Interest: Policy Directions for the New Century. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2003.

Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1963.

Shanks, Cheryl. Immigration and the Politics of American Sovereignty, 1880-1990. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.


Act of September 26, 1961

This law added more exceptions to immigration restriction by national quotas by categorizing international adoption as a form of family reunification.

Pitanja za raspravu

What requirements were imposed on the adoptions covered by this law?

Why did transnational adoptions gain popularity in this period?

Why was it important that these adoption were exempt from national immigration quota restrictions?

Sažetak

The practice of transnational, transracial adoptions gained popularity starting with the adoption of Korean children during the Korean War (1950-53). Euro-American families felt compelled to rescue children from the poor and beleaguered nation, particularly mixed race children produced by relationships between U.S. military personnel and Korean women. Until recently, Korean law excluded illegitimate children from social services such as schools and health care, giving the mothers little choice but to put their children up for adoption. During the 1950s, Korean children were admitted under stopgap refugee measures. Advocates campaigned for legislation for the admission of foreign adoptees, which resulted in this law categorizing their immigration as a form of family reunification outside of national immigration quota restrictions.

Izvor

” SEC. 2. Section 101(b) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 171 71 (8 U.S.C. 1101) is hereby amended by adding the following:

“(F) a child who is an eligible orphan, adopted abroad by a United States citizen and spouse or coming to the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and spouse: Provided That no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any such child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”

… No petition for nonquota immigrant status in behalf of a child . . . shall be approved by the Attorney General unless the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the petitioner and spouse will care for such child properly if he is admitted to the United States, and (i) in the case of a child adopted abroad, that the petitioner and spouse personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings, and (ii) in the case of a child coming to the United States for adoption, that the petitioner and spouse have complied with the preadoption requirements, if any, of the State of such child’s proposed residence…

Analysis

Analysis of Act from A. Oh:

The 1961 act definitely marked the Korean child’s legal transformation from refugee to immigrant by elevating foreign-born adopted children from the legal status of “eligible orphan” to the more privileged category of “immediate relative.” The 1957 act had required that a child first apply for admission through the quota system. If the quota for the child’s country of origin was oversubscribed, she could then receive a special non-quota immigrant visa based on her status as an “eligible orphan.” As of 1961, Korean children bypassed the quota system altogether. As family members who entered the United States with the status of “immediate relatives,” they benefited from the immigration system’s emphasis on family reunification, even when it conflicted with race-based exclusion (p. 150).

Excerpt from:
Oh, A. H. (2015). To save the children of Korea: The Cold War origins of international adoption. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Lesson Plan

Introductory Activity:

  1. Turn and Talk: have students read the quotes aloud. With a partner, students will discuss what is common among the quotes.

“increasing apprehension among our citizens … about the moral principle involved when we keep children and spouses apart from fathers and husbands for many years by immigration barriers.” –Eisenhower, 1956

United States had “been built by immigrants from other countries” and that “[humanitarianism] itself calls for action to bring about a reunion of immediate family members under preferential quotas.” –Nixon, 1960

“the most important immediate objective of immigration policy is the reuniting of families.” “We have a social obligation to bring these families together” –JFK, 1961

  1. Ask students to consider the dates of the quotes. How might the historical context affect how we understand the quotes?

Commentary by historian Paul Kramer: “New Cold War arguments about family unity also bolstered the cause. Helping families to reunite would attract skilled, talented people who would help the United States beat the Communists while sending the right messages out into the world about the United States as a humanitarian society” (Washington Post, June 26, 2018)

Guided Practice:

1. Print out each law/policy/court case connected to Family Reunification (short summaries-adapted to grade level if needed). Divide class into groups and give each group one set. Have each group try to put the laws/policies/court cases in chronological order.

2. Announce the actual chronology and have each group fix their timelines.

3. Defining “Family”: Present an excerpt from US v. Windsor (2013) and ask students to consider how this court ruling defines “family,” what this ruling reveals about how “family” has been defined, and how this affects immigration in the U.S.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of “spouse” as that term is used in federal statutes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this provision. The United States District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor’s favor.

5. Ask students if there is anything else they would want to add to their themes.

6. Students will examine the following graphs and charts:

-Percentage of immigration based on family reunification: From Ruth Wassem, “U.S. Immigration policy: Chart book of key trends” (January 2013)

-Percentage of family reunification immigration by sending region

Question: What are some conclusions that can be made based on these graphs?

  1. Students will research “family reunification” and “chain migration” online and chart out the different websites and content they find. With a partner, and keeping in mind the themes noted by the class across the laws/policies/court rulings, students will discuss why they think the two searches yield different results.

-Note: If reading level is a challenge, have students use newsela and adjust the reading levels as needed.


A Brief History of US Immigration

Let’s get an idea of the history of U.S. immigration, as this is a core component of the Capital/Labor Ratio. Why allow immigration at all? Who benefits? There have been many successful examples of countries with virtually no immigration, such as Japan, or Britain before recent decades. Basically, Capital benefits. More workers means cheaper labor.

By this estimate, the US population without immigration would be about 127 million today. However, this assumes that other factors stay equal. Perhaps there would have been higher fertility among the native population in other scenarios.

Before 1840, there was not much immigration to the United States. In 1830, 98% of the population was native-born. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited new citizens to “free white persons,” and immigration from developed European countries constituted nearly all immigration until 1970. Immigration picked up in the 1830s and especially in the 1840s, mostly an influx of Irish. (Ireland was part of Great Britain at that time.) Before 1870, almost all the new immigration came from Britain, Canada (then also a British commonwealth), Ireland and Germany, with the remainder from other developed European countries including France, Sweden and Switzerland.

(For comparison, an estimated 2.3 million people emigrated to Britain over 145 years from 1800 to 1945, with 1,500,000 of them Irish the foreign-born population in 1931 was under 2%.)

After 1870, there was a boom of new immigrants from Europe. Before 1900, this was again dominated by Germans, British, Irish and Canadians. After 1900, there were more Italians and Poles, and some Russians.

In 1921 a more strict quota system was imposed, limiting immigration still further and leading to a major decline in immigration afterwards. It allowed more migration from Northern European countries but severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Asians were almost banned completely.

Applications for permanent residence (legal immigration) per year.

In 1952, a new limit on immigration was set at 175,000 per year, from all sources, while national-origins quotas from the 1920s were maintained. Between 1944 and 1954, illegal immigration from Mexico expanded by an estimated 60 times, with a total of about one million illegal immigrants arriving during that decade. (The immediate result of this was that compensation for agricultural workers fell by half in Texas.) In 1954, Operation Wetback forced the return of thousands of illegal immigrants to Mexico, many of them leaving of their own accord after finding the environment in the U.S. inhospitable. Possibly up to 1,300,000 illegal immigrant workers returned to Mexico.

Thus, the period 1921-1965 was a time of increasing restrictions on immigration. It was also, I would argue, a time when the Lower 40% of U.S. society did unusually well, especially after 1950, with the Capital:Labor ratio swinging in favor of Labor.

The Capital:Labor ratio is not a zero-sum game, with one side winning and the other losing. Rather, it is mostly a matter of spreading a scarce resource (Capital) among a greater or lesser amount of Labor.

The Immigration Act of 1965 changed the immigration picture in the U.S., allowing a huge increase in immigration, this time dominated by Hispanic immigration (mostly from Mexico), and secondarily, Asian immigration. This was accompanied by a huge increase in illegal immigration, again mostly Hispanic.

The Capital:Labor ratio in the U.S. changed dramatically.

There is a good website called WTF Happened in 1971?, that looks at some of the changes to the U.S. economy since around 1970. The time 1971 pointedly marks the advent of floating fiat currencies in the U.S., from the Bretton Woods gold standard that preceded it. This certainly had many important consequences, which I will talk about in detail. But, the changes cannot, in my view, be ascribed to monetary factors alone. A number of things happened around that time, with the Immigration Act of 1965 certainly an important milestone but also, the entrance of Chinese labor into the world market with the liberalization of China beginning in 1978.

I think we could look at U.S. history as having three big immigration booms. The first was the 1830-1860 boom. Arguably, this could be seen as one long ramp into 1920, but the presence of the Civil War in the middle tends to split it in my mind. Then, there was another boom in 1870-1920. A third boom began in 1965.

There seems to be a pattern here, of Labor becoming scarce relative to Capital. Each of these immigration booms began with a period of prosperity and rising wages. Capital was becoming plentiful Labor becoming relatively more scarce. Basically, Capital (business) went looking for cheaper labor.


Quota of 700 Cases a Year Imposed on Immigration Judges

SAN DIEGO—The Trump administration has introduced production quotas for immigration judges in an effort to reduce enormous court backlogs, raising concern among judges and attorneys that decisions may be unfairly rushed.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review said judges must complete 700 cases a year to earn a satisfactory grade. The standards, which take effect Oct. 1, include six other measures indicating how much time judges should spend on different types of cases and court motions.

The move, while significant, didn’t come as a surprise. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who oversees immigration courts, has sought major changes to the long-clogged courts as a sharp increase in deportation arrests under President Donald Trump has pushed the backlog above 650,000 cases. In December, Sessions wrote judges that performance measures would aid in “the efficient and timely completion of cases and motions” while maintaining fairness.

James McHenry, director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, used similar language in an email Friday that details the new measures for the department’s approximately 350 immigration judges.

“Using metrics to evaluate performance is neither novel nor unique to (the Executive Office for Immigration Review),” McHenry wrote. “The purpose of implementing these metrics is to encourage efficient and effective case management while preserving immigration judge discretion and due process.”

The Associated Press obtained a copy of McHenry’s memo and performance plan, whose contents were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The measures are highly specific. A judge who completes more than 560 cases a year but fewer than 700 “needs improvement.” Deciding fewer than 560 cases a year is deemed unsatisfactory.

The Justice Department said Monday that judges complete an average of 678 cases a year.

Under one benchmark, judges must rule the same day on every plea by asylum seekers to pass an initial threshold of establishing “credible” or “reasonable” fear to earn a satisfactory mark, unless the Homeland Security Department is responsible for them failing to show. Anything less than 80 percent is considered unsatisfactory.

The National Immigration Judges Association, whose recent collective bargaining agreement allows for performance metrics, strongly opposes the numerical targets and will explore options under federal labor law, said Dana Leigh Marks, a union spokeswoman.

“We believe the imposition of numerical performance metrics is completely, utterly contrary to judicial independence,” said Marks, who is also an immigration judge in San Francisco. “We believe assessing quality is fine, not quantity.”

Judges can argue that the nature of their cases justifies a lower completion rate, but Marks said keeping logs will add to their work burden and potentially create more backlog. She also said people may be more inclined to appeal decisions by arguing that the quotas denied them a fair hearing.

Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said immigration attorneys were deeply concerned that cases will be “rushed through.”

“Subjecting judges to numerical goals undermines one of the core principles of our judicial system, which is really a fair day in court,” she said.


Gledaj video: Kota City lockdown status1 Kota ke status RV Video Rj08