As noted in a publication of the journal "Russia in Global Affairs", initially freedom of immigration mainly meant freedom of European Protestant immigration. But even then, demands to restrict entry of certain ethnic or religious groups were repeatedly heard. This largely paradoxical situation arose despite the fact that Americans are a nation of immigrants.
Evolution of U.S. immigration policy
Benjamin Franklin (the most tolerant and democratic of the "Founding Fathers") was concerned about the scale of immigration of ethnic Germans, who, in his opinion, were generally insufficiently cultured and educated and had great difficulty learning English. Franklin feared that their presence would create "serious disorders among us." (Today, people of German descent constitute the largest population group in the United States, and the country's president is a man with a German surname, Bush.)
In the middle of the 19th century, intensive immigration from Catholic Mediterranean countries and Ireland (the latter largely a consequence of the "potato famine" of the 1850s) gave rise to fears of a change in the religious and ethnic balance and demands for the introduction of immigration quotas. These fears intensified as the share of people from Asia and non-Christian denominations grew. In particular, in the second half of the 19th century, an intensive influx of contract workers from China and some other Asian countries began. By 1880, more than 200,000 Chinese had settled in California, accounting for almost 10% of its population. In response, restrictions were introduced: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which for 10 years banned Chinese immigration and naturalization of Chinese permanent residents of the United States.
In the 1890s, significant migration flows emerged from Central and Eastern Europe, including large-scale Jewish immigration: in the 1890s, the share of Western Europeans in the inflow was less than 50%, while in the 1860s it had exceeded 95%. At the same time, the scale of arrivals continued to grow. In just over 30 years (1892-1924), more than 12 million people passed through the famous New York island of Ellis Island.
Immigration growth peaked in the first decade of the 20th century, when about 9 million people entered the country. Both the number of immigrants and the change in their religious and ethnic composition prompted numerous demands either to restrict migration or to close the doors to entry for a certain period. Such sentiments particularly intensified in the 1910s-1920s, as changes in the ethnic composition of migrants coincided with a sharp increase in their numbers. In 1910, 14.7% of U.S. residents were foreign-born (currently, 10.4%).
A number of strict administrative measures were adopted aimed at restricting immigration and regulating its regional and ethnic structure. In particular, the Immigration Act of 1917 singled out categories of persons not subject to admission and clarified the literacy test that had already existed before. The legislative acts of 1921 and especially the Immigration Act of 1924 established quotas that were to ensure the preservation of existing interethnic and other proportions in the composition of the American population. Annual immigration from individual countries and regions was not to exceed "one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920." The Great Depression of 1929 was followed by restrictive measures. As a result, the flow of migrants decreased from 280,000 people in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933.
New changes were made to immigration legislation in 1952 with Congress's passage of the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. This legislative act confirmed the quotas introduced in 1924. As before, they did not apply to natives of the Western Hemisphere, spouses and children of U.S. citizens. A number of racial restrictions were abolished, while the list of political restrictions that appeared in 1950 was expanded.
Real changes aimed at easing immigration legislation and eliminating discriminatory preferences began as part of the general liberalization and civil rights struggle in the 1960s. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration Reform Act, later supplemented in 1976 and 1980: an annual limit was set, initially at 170,000, then at 320,000 immigrants and refugees. No more than 20,000 people could enter from any one country. Priority was given to highly skilled workers and persons with relatives in the United States.
The consequence of this new approach and the virtual abolition of discriminatory quotas was a rapid change in the regional and ethnic structure of immigration flows. Thus, if before 1965 more than 90% of immigrants came to the United States from Europe, 20 years later the share of Europeans was below 10%. Most immigrants now arrive in the United States from developing countries (currently, half of foreign-born U.S. residents come from Latin America, and a quarter from Asia).
In recent decades, migration, both legal and illegal, has sparked ongoing debates in American society. Proposals range widely—from full legalization of illegal immigrants and liberalization of the migration regime to its complete prohibition. Among the most controversial measures are periodic amnesties for illegal immigrants.
The immigration system was further developed with the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act by Congress in 1986. Unlike previous documents, this one was primarily aimed at solving the problem of illegal labor immigration, which had reached enormous proportions and this time was dominated by migrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries. In essence, this act was a compromise aimed simultaneously at legalizing many immigrants already in the United States and at creating obstacles to the expansion of the number of illegal immigrants in the future.
Those who could provide evidence of continuous residence in the United States since January 1, 1982, or earlier could receive amnesty and legal status with the prospect of obtaining permanent residency. Conversely, individuals who entered the country illegally after 1982 were subject to deportation. At the same time, employers who knowingly hired illegal migrants were now subject to fines, and for repeat offenses could face imprisonment.
The procedure for hiring foreign nationals also changed radically. Before 1986, many employers first hired foreigners and only then requested permission from immigration authorities. Now this procedure had to be completed before the start of employment. Moreover, corporate headquarters became responsible for decisions made by their branches in this area. Interestingly, at the same time, refusing to hire foreigners legally in the country with appropriate permission based on their citizenship, national, religious, or racial origin was considered a violation of their civil rights. This could lead to fines and lawsuits, creating serious difficulties for both employers and immigration and law enforcement agencies.
By May 4, 1987, approximately 2 million people had applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for amnesty, with over 70% of them coming from Mexico. At the same time, many illegal immigrants did not attempt to change their status because they could not document the length of their stay in the United States and feared that even if successful, some family members might face deportation.
A similar reform was carried out after Congress passed a new Immigration Act, signed by the American president on November 29, 1990. Quotas were again increased, especially for family members. This was explained by the need to reduce illegal immigration and strengthen law enforcement control over migrant flows.
The annual immigration quota rose to 700,000 people, not counting refugees. In 1995, the quota was slightly reduced (to 675,000 people) and included the following main categories: 465,000 people arriving under family reunification programs, 140,000 labor migrants, and 55,000 migrants arriving under the diversity visa lottery program aimed at increasing the ethnic diversity of American society. It should be noted that after the events of September 2001, the lottery concept came under sharp criticism as a potential source of uncontrolled entry into the country of individuals with ideologies hostile to the United States and persons linked to terrorist organizations.
Problems of migration policy
The reasons for the relative ineffectiveness of measures restricting immigration are obvious. These include the de facto openness of borders, the relative weakness of enforcement mechanisms of immigration and other law enforcement agencies constrained by strict constitutional limits, the high income levels of the American population, and the political guarantees provided by American legislation, which attract people of various educational and professional categories from around the world, but primarily from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Six types of migrants can be identified as dominant in the immigration flow: low-skilled labor workers; highly skilled professionals and students; refugees; people arriving under family reunification; individuals entering under the diversity visa lottery program; and illegal migrants.
After the end of the Cold War, and especially after the terrorist attacks in September 2001, particular attention has been paid to those aspects of immigration related to the potential entry of terrorists and members of organized criminal groups from abroad. Control over international financial flows, including migrant remittances, has been strengthened.
In early 2004, President George W. Bush introduced a new legislative initiative aimed at partially solving the problem of illegal immigration. Notably, Bush had planned to propose this program at the very beginning of his presidency but was forced to postpone it due to the September 2001 attacks and the subsequent tightening of immigration control, as well as the general deterioration of relations with Mexico, which refused to support U.S. actions in Iraq. Unusual also is the fact that Bush, relying on support from conservative political circles, took a fairly liberal stance, going against a significant part of the Republican Party. This can be seen as evidence of the seriousness of the problem, which the president, as a former governor of the border state of Texas, fully understands.
It is important that the rapidly growing proportion of Spanish speakers among the American population turns them into a significant political force, leading to increased inter-party competition for their votes. The immigration amnesty of 1986, for example, led to an increase in the number of voters by 3 million people. The share of Hispanic voters grew from 2% in 1988 to 7% in 2000 and 9% during the 2004 elections. Meanwhile, more than 90% of Spanish-speaking residents support the idea of legalizing illegal immigrants.
President Bush’s new initiative was as follows: illegal aliens currently in the United States receive a legal work permit for a period of three years. To do so, they need the support of an employer who promises to hire them. During the three-year period, immigrants may, after paying certain taxes and fines, apply to the appropriate authorities for permanent immigration status or leave the country and take their savings out legally. Those wishing to enter the US could also apply for a temporary three-year visa at American consulates abroad.
George Bush’s ideas generally did not receive political support. In 2006, Congress took up immigration issues in earnest. The Capitol’s legislative initiative turned out to be more conservative: illegals were required to leave and apply for a new work visa from their home country. Illegal entry into the country was proposed to be classified as a criminal offense, although it is currently considered an administrative violation. The emphasis was on prohibitive and administrative measures: rapid expansion of the Border Patrol, establishment of immigration prisons, and construction of a barrier wall along a portion of the US-Mexico border. Moreover, out of 1,900 miles of border, the barrier was to cover only 300 miles. The House of Representatives proposed protecting 30% of the border, the Senate – 15%. Ultimately, the Senate refused to approve the bill.
In the summer of 2007, the House of Representatives began considering a new, much more liberal legislative initiative. Bush staked his reputation by personally coming to Congress to support the bill, which is extremely rare. Nevertheless, this compromise program essentially failed largely due to the president’s political weakness, and it is difficult to expect any radical measures in this area until a new administration arrives.
Evolution of the Immigration Service: Structural Aspect
Initially, migration matters were handled by the Bureau of Immigration, established in 1891 as a division of the Department of the Treasury. In 1933, the functions of this agency were expanded, and it was given responsibility for naturalization, i.e., granting citizenship.
In 1940, the Immigration and Naturalization Service became a division of the Department of Justice. Under this structure, at the beginning of the present century, there were three regional offices, comprising 33 district offices and 21 border control posts serving over 3,700 terminals at more than 300 border crossings, as well as three overseas offices in Bangkok, Mexico City, and Rome. This immigration structure is under enormous strain: annually, 475 million people, 125 million vehicles, and 21 million import shipments cross US borders. Among those crossing the border during the 1990s, between 800,000 and 1.5 million migrants arrived legally in the US each year.
The shock caused by the terrorist attacks in September 2001 forced American authorities to reconsider the functions and goals of many agencies involved in security, border protection, intelligence, and foreign policy. As part of this strategy, the Department of Homeland Security was created, which consolidated 22 federal agencies that were previously independent or part of other departments. Thus, on March 1, 2003, the INS became part of this 'super-ministry' under a new name – the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Overall, these changes indicate increased centralization and a growing role for law enforcement agencies, as well as heightened attention to security issues in the migration sphere.