# What is the case against "chain immigration"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303 "2018-01-23T16:21:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/1 "2018-01-23T16:21:28Z")
In tweets and speeches, Trump and some other GOP immigration hardliners rail against what they call “chain immigration”, also known as family immigration. It’s the system whereby a **legal** immigrant who has come to the US **legally** can sponsor a family member back home to also legally immigrate to the US in a legal way. Once established in the US, the second family member also has the ability to sponsor family members for legal immigration. This has resulted in large families (parents, aunts and uncles, siblings, cousins), over a period of many years, to legally immigrate to the US. What’s the problem with that exactly? I would assume that immigrants with families in the country are more desirable than those without families. They are less likely to be sending money back home, they are more likely to have jobs and careers to support their dependents, they are less likely to commit crimes (these are all my assumptions). My cynical take is that it makes it easier for brown-skinned people from shithole countries to come here legally, but I’d like to hear the actual justification used. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/2 "2018-01-23T16:52:04Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > In tweets and speeches, Trump and some other GOP immigration hardliners rail against what they call “chain immigration”, also known as family immigration. It’s the system whereby a **legal** immigrant who has come to the US **legally** can sponsor a family member back home to also legally immigrate to the US in a legal way. Once established in the US, the second family member also has the ability to sponsor family members for legal immigration. This has resulted in large families (parents, aunts and uncles, siblings, cousins), over a period of many years, to legally immigrate to the US. > > What’s the problem with that exactly? I would assume that immigrants with families in the country are more desirable than those without families. They are less likely to be sending money back home, they are more likely to have jobs and careers to support their dependents, they are less likely to commit crimes (these are all my assumptions). > > My cynical take is that it makes it easier for brown-skinned people from shithole countries to come here legally, but I’d like to hear the actual justification used. Henry Cabot Lodge Southern and Eastern Europe were racially inferior to Anglo-Saxons, and were a threat the American way of life. He and others worried about immigrants bringing in poverty and organized crime and unemployment. He was a Senator and a member National Association of Immigration Restriction League in the 1890s and is one of the earliest documented forces in this type of restriction. Some times it is based on race, or racial motivations are found but primarily it seems to be classism and some wish to avoid change. But there is also that unfortunate human trait of dehumanizing “others” that are different enough to place into an out-group. Similar issue with someone who likes another sports team or who drives a differently shaped car as you and is generally considered an attribution error. Here is a good paper about the era around 1908, when the Federal Government lost a court case where they tried to deny citizenship to some Finnish people under the Chinese Exclusion act and the surrounding events and differing immigrant opinions. > **[De Gruyter](https://www.degruyter.com/)** > > Independent academic publisher dedicated to high-caliber scholarship from around the world – since 1749. As in a modern era people would laugh at you if you said a Finn wasn’t white, the distance may help with removing that emotional complexity from the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/3 "2018-01-23T17:00:29Z")
That answer supports what I already believe, that it is a matter of racism and classism. But I’m sure people who support ending chain migration must have some other justification, don’t they? I’m trying very hard to assume there is some hidden social or economic benefit to ending this policy but I don’t see it. I only see statements from Republicans who start with the idea that it is bad, and go from there. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/4 "2018-01-23T17:04:57Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > My cynical take is that it makes it easier for brown-skinned people from shithole countries to come here legally, but I’d like to hear the actual justification used. O think that’s a lot of the actual reason, but but the most common argument that gets used is that it takes slots that could go to useful people and gives them to people whose only qualification is that they’re related to somebody already here. I think the general view about immigration that that side takes is that, while unlimited immigration made sense in the 19th century, when the country was still expanding and we could accept pretty much anyone, now, because of both the maturing of our economy, where we no longer have a bunch of empty lands to settle, or factories desperate for employees, and the growth of the welfare state,so that people who aren’t productive are a drain on the economy, we need to be careful to only accept those immigrants who will contribute to the economic health and prosperity of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/5 "2018-01-23T17:06:23Z")
The whole point of coming to America is to leave your stupid loser family behind and seek your own fortune. If your family wasn’t a bunch of stupid losers, they’d be in America already. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/6 "2018-01-23T17:07:35Z")
Well it isn’t hidden - poor people - i.e. people of color who are immigrating to this country (because most white Christian countries are first or second world and people from Norway don’t generally need to move for more opportunity) are a short term drain on resources (or alternatively, are willing to work for less than people who live here). And if you value economic efficiency over ideas like justice and fairness or say the family value of keeping a family together, that’s the justification you need. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/7 "2018-01-23T17:07:43Z")
First one has to know that the loaded term: “chain migration” is not what is used properly, it is a term that comes from nativist and/or supremacist groups when framing the debate. Of course the problem is that we got a president and some right wingers who get their information from the extremist groups and it is percolating and being normalized. Not normal, but par of the course with the current administration/Republican congress [http://www.kxlf.com/story/37277921/how-gop-made-family-reunification-a-dirty-word](http://www.kxlf.com/story/37277921/how-gop-made-family-reunification-a-dirty-word) > [@](#): > > (CNN) – The media has focused relentlessly on Donald Trump’s closed-door meeting last week with US senators, where he reportedly referred to African nations as “shithole countries.” Republicans and Democrats alike have rightly condemned the language as disrespectful and unacceptable, and news outlets have covered the speculation and controversy over whether Trump used that exact phrase or a different one. > > By contrast, very few are paying attention to another of the President’s word choices – less outrageous but nevertheless, one with huge potential consequences. > > Trump is shifting the narrative on family migration by using an ideologically loaded term – “chain migration” – instead of the more neutral terms that have long been used in America to describe an essential feature of immigration policy: “family reunification” or “family migration.” > > These terms accurately describe the ability of US citizens and immigrants to sponsor family members for visas. By contrast, “chain migration” is a phrase used by conservative groups whose apparent aim is to reduce immigration — both legal and illegal — to the United States. Such groups, like NumbersUSA and Federation for American Immigration Reform, use the term to mischaracterize family immigration and cast it in a negative light. > > For over 50 years, family unification has been one of two main pillars of US immigration policy. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a landmark bill that abolished national origin restrictions, he said that “from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/8 "2018-01-23T17:09:00Z")
No, you see, they’re not against immigration, just against illegal immigration. If all of those brown people would just come here via the abundant legal avenues available to them, there’d be no problem. But instead, they choose to break the law, and so they’re illegals, and so deserve… Wait, what’s that you say? No, really? Well in that case, Hey, look! A loser, over there! Let’s all point and laugh at the loser! Now, what were we talking about? Oh, yes, that’s right, we were just saying how great Trump is. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/9 "2018-01-23T17:12:42Z")
The irony is that the family migration policy is a result of racist policy to start with. When the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, it’s opponent st were worried that the US would now be swamped by non white immigrants. By including a provision that have preferences to family members of people already here, they hoped that would help counteract all the immigrants from newly allowed countries. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/10 "2018-01-23T17:59:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > First one has to know that the loaded term: “chain migration” is not what is used properly, it is a term that comes from nativist and/or supremacist groups when framing the debate. Yep and it’s an extremely misleading term when we consider just how many years it can take for family members to be approved for visas: typically 9 years and in some cases up to 20 years. It’s a chain with extemely long links. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/11 "2018-01-23T18:11:30Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Henry Cabot Lodge Southern and Eastern Europe were racially inferior to Anglo-Saxons, and were a threat the American way of life. He and others worried about immigrants bringing in poverty and organized crime and unemployment. > > He was a Senator and a member National Association of Immigration Restriction League in the 1890s and is one of the earliest documented forces in this type of restriction. > > Some times it is based on race, or racial motivations are found but primarily it seems to be classism and some wish to avoid change. > > But there is also that unfortunate human trait of dehumanizing “others” that are different enough to place into an out-group. Similar issue with someone who likes another sports team or who drives a differently shaped car as you and is generally considered an attribution error. > > Here is a good paper about the era around 1908, when the Federal Government lost a court case where they tried to deny citizenship to some Finnish people under the Chinese Exclusion act and the surrounding events and differing immigrant opinions. > > [De Gruyter](https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/njmr.2014.4.issue-4/njmr-2014-0028/njmr-2014-0028.pdf) > > As in a modern era people would laugh at you if you said a Finn wasn’t white, the distance may help with removing that emotional complexity from the subject. In Mr Robot there is a actress who is Finnish I think, a stunningly beautiful woman, and the thing is she looks asian, to me anyway. I wonder if they were thought of as asians or something akin to eskimos even. ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/12 "2018-01-23T18:16:37Z")
I don’t really agree with the opposition to chain migration, but this thread is in need of a devil’s advocate, so here it is: There number of people who can immigrate is finite, and there needs to be some way of choosing among those who want to come. One policy goal is to encourage people with high skills and education. Allowing people to come just by virtual of being related to someone who is already here takes places away from those with skills but no family connections. It is worth noting that Canada, for example, does not include siblings in their family reunification immigration statutes and European countries are also fairly restrictive. > **[Family reunification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification)** > > Family reunification is a recognized reason for immigration in many countries because of the presence of one or more family members in a certain country, therefore, enables the rest of the divided family or only specific members of the family to emigrate to that country as well. > Family reunification laws try to balance the right of a family to live together with the country's right to control immigration. How they balance and which members of the family can be reunited differ largely by country... ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/13 "2018-01-23T18:18:45Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Well it isn’t hidden - poor people - i.e. people of color who are immigrating to this country (because most white Christian countries are first or second world and people from Norway don’t generally need to move for more opportunity) are a short term drain on resources (or alternatively, are willing to work for less than people who live here). And if you value economic efficiency over ideas like justice and fairness or say the family value of keeping a family together, that’s the justification you need. That’s the kind of reasoning I’m looking for. Is the expectation that if we don’t let someone’s brother-in-law from Guatemala or Haiti in, that we’ll get a college professor from Slovakia or an Estonian web developer instead? In other words, it’s not the family relationships or even (perhaps) the race of the immigrant – they just don’t want poor people. Is that it? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/14 "2018-01-23T19:38:05Z")
> [@zimaane](#): > > I don’t really agree with the opposition to chain migration, but this thread is in need of a devil’s advocate, so here it is: > > Allowing people to come just by virtual of being related to someone who is already here takes places away from those with skills but no family connections. The response to this is that once immigrants are legal residents, and certainly once they are citizens, they are Americans, and I think it’s fair to say that American immigration policy should serve Americans in ways that go beyond the economics of it, that Americans should be entitled to have their family come live with them. I think the rejection of “family immigration” is based on a deep-seated belief that however long an immigrant is here, they are “other” and so they have no claims on the system. It’s like if we were discussing why consulates help Americans abroad who have lost their passports or handle evacuations of Americans in natural diasters. It’s not because our economy benefits from their return: it’s because they are Americans and helping Americans is what the government is supposed to do. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/15 "2018-01-23T19:47:25Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > The response to this is that once immigrants are legal residents, and certainly once they are citizens, they are Americans, and I think it’s fair to say that American immigration policy should serve Americans in ways that go beyond the economics of it, that Americans should be entitled to have their family come live with them. I think the rejection of “family immigration” is based on a deep-seated belief that however long an immigrant is here, they are “other” and so they have no claims on the system. > > It’s like if we were discussing why consulates help Americans abroad who have lost their passports or handle evacuations of Americans in natural diasters. It’s not because our economy benefits from their return: it’s because they are Americans and helping Americans is what the government is supposed to do. Running (rightly or wrongly) with the ongoing premise that “chain immigration” hinders the United States ability to allow “the best and the brightest” of a given country to immigrate: 1. Would do you believe that’s a problem, and, 2. Do you believe that the United States has a vested right to limit “chain immigration” in order to get the best here? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/16 "2018-01-23T20:42:41Z")
I think that you could make a non-racist argument against “chain immigration” that goes: 1. We need to have some overall limit on immigration for practical purposes (too high an immigrant population and you get societal cohesiveness problems). Almost everyone agrees with this, although they disagree about what the limit should be. Even most people who want to achieve a truly borderless world agree that in the near-term, it would cause chaos to throw open the gates. 2. Within the limit, there are all sorts of different characteristics that we might favor. Maybe we want to bring in people with particular skills, or people who are seeking asylum, or whatever. You could reasonably argue that it’s more important to prioritize skills/people in danger than people who are related to those already here. Like, someone could say “we’re spending too many limited immigration slots on western Europeans with relatives here who are perfectly safe in their home countries, as humanitarians we ought to be taking in more Syrian refugees”, which would be a non-racist argument against chain immigration. I don’t believe anyone in the mainstream is making that argument. I agree with the OP that the mainstream arguments against it seem to be fairly thinly-veiled racism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/17 "2018-01-23T20:56:42Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The irony is that the family migration policy is a result of racist policy to start with. When the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, it’s opponent st were worried that the US would now be swamped by non white immigrants. By including a provision that have preferences to family members of people already here, they hoped that would help counteract all the immigrants from newly allowed countries. Is that really true? I’m not saying I know it isn’t, but why would people think that people “already here” had close relatives that were not here? It’s not like you could bring your 5th cousin in or something. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/18 "2018-01-23T21:01:06Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I don’t believe anyone in the mainstream is making that argument. I agree with the OP that the mainstream arguments against it seem to be fairly thinly-veiled racism. Especially when many in the mainstream making the argument against chain migration either don’t understand it, or are deliberately lying. There are many statements made about it that have no semblance to reality. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/19 "2018-01-23T21:18:10Z")
My German grandfather emigrated to the USA in the 30’s and worked hard to bring the rest of his family over. This is the prototypical pattern of US immigration from the very beginning. Now some people have forgotten how their own family got here and want to close the doors on others doing the same. Honestly, this is Human Nature. Give a questionable student or a talented one a black belt and watch the hue and cry about how those who earned theirs after them didn’t deserve it. People near the door to a packed venue will demand that they be allowed in, but not people after them. “Ok, I made it in. You can close the door now.” ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/20 "2018-01-23T21:21:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Is that really true? I’m not saying I know it isn’t, but why would people think that people “already here” had close relatives that were not here? It’s not like you could bring your 5th cousin in or something. Family reunification in the U.S. includes parents and siblings, so yes, someone who comes via work or the lottery would likely have close relatives not here. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303.md?page=2)