# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/21 "2018-01-23T21:24:33Z")
I find it ironic that the hard-nosed more-openly-racist 19th Century leadership of the U.S. allowed immigrants to enter as families, when all the businessmen who effectively ran the country really wanted were workingmen for their factories, warehouses, etc., but now in the 21st Century when the U.S. is almost infinitely more prosperous the idea of keeping immigrant families together is controversial. 😕 Especially as it’s controversial in the “pro-family” party. :dubious: Then again, the _modus operandi_ of the modern GOP with its extreme reactionary factions is to raise controversy on policy issues that most people thought were settled decades ago. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/22 "2018-01-23T21:57:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. This is from here, an interview with John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of San Diego, who studies immigration policy: > **[The Last Time the U.S. Seriously Considered Merit-Based Immigration](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/immigrants-merit-based/535974/)** > > President Trump is backing a plan that would prioritize skills. Fifty years ago, Lyndon Johnson tried the same, and failed. > [@](#): > > Semuels: What happened? Why wasn’t [a merit based syatem] enacted? > > Skerenty: The problem was that a lot of members of Congress—mostly from the South—were really worried about that approach. They thought that the people with the best skills might be from countries that they didn’t think “fit in” best with America. So in order to get votes from Southern Democrats, to support the ending of national-origin discrimination, the White House had to find a different system that satisfied the Democrats. And the system that satisfied them was family reunification. The Democrats’ thinking was that since the U.S. was overwhelmingly white, and mostly northern and western European, that northern and western European potential migrants would have a leg up over everyone else, and that the demographic mix would become self-reinforcing. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/23 "2018-01-23T22:09:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but many people, especially men, leave their wives and children behind to work for wages that are depressed here but can move their families into the middle or lower-middle class. That’s why you’ll often find a group of men living together in numbers that exceed their lease restrictions and the law. I’ll add that remittances are a net gain for both countries. The money those men would otherwise spend here is a molecule in the bucket. Meanwhile, the wife and kids are spending money at American-based stores buying American goods. (Well, to the extent those still exist.) The more stable families abroad, the less immigration here. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/24 "2018-01-23T23:02:25Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > 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. Which goes to show how clearly broken our immigration system is. I don’t think this is a morally clear issue either. Assuming that immigrant slots are limited, the question becomes how best to distribute them. I don’t see how a relation based system is morally superior to a need based or skill based on. In fact, I’d think of those three ways to do it, it is the least just. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/25 "2018-01-23T23:40:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > This is from here, an interview with John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of San Diego, who studies immigration policy: > > [The Last Time the U.S. Seriously Considered Merit-Based Immigration - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/immigrants-merit-based/535974/) But that requires Senators to be ignorant of recent history. The great migration to the US that happened roughly between 1880 and 1920 was mostly folks coming from Southern and Eastern Europe, not Western and Northern Europe. So it would be the former, not the latter who would be making up the bulk of the beneficiaries of a family based system. There was much wringing of hands about those “Jews and Slavs and what-have-you” who came to the US during the heyday of immigration. Those folks who were “already here” from Northern and Western Europe would mostly not have close relatives trying to immigrate here. They might have distant relatives, but not close ones. ---
**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 24, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/26 "2018-01-24T03:03:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But that requires Senators to be ignorant of recent history. The great migration to the US that happened roughly between 1880 and 1920 was mostly folks coming from Southern and Eastern Europe, not Western and Northern Europe. So it would be the former, not the latter who would be making up the bulk of the beneficiaries of a family based system. There was much wringing of hands about those “Jews and Slavs and what-have-you” who came to the US during the heyday of immigration. Those folks who were “already here” from Northern and Western Europe would mostly not have close relatives trying to immigrate here. They might have distant relatives, but not close ones. But the bill we’re talking about was passed in the 1960s. Under the Immigration Act of 1924, (which was the law on immigration until the passage of the 1952 act) annual immigration from a country was limited to 2% of the people from that country living in the US at the time of the 1890 census. The 1924 act also banned almost all immigration from Asia. From 1924 to 1952, almost all of the immigrants to this country were from Northern and Western Europe, Almost no Southern or Eastern Europeans could come to the country under the 1924 act. Even under the more liberal 1952 act, most immigrants to this country were coming from Ireland, the UK, and Germany. So the “Jews and Slavs and what have you” weren’t the majority of people who would benefit from family migration in the 1960s. The British and Irish, and Germans, and French would, because for the past 40 years, almost all the immigrants to the US were coming from Western Europe. ---
**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 24, 2018, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/27 "2018-01-24T08:29:46Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Assuming that immigrant slots are limited, the question becomes how best to distribute them. I don’t see how a relation based system is morally superior to a need based or skill based on. In fact, I’d think of those three ways to do it, it is the least just. I think it’s very misleading to call it a “relation based system”. The majority of green cards go to skilled workers, and their spouse and young children. If that counts as relation-based then every country has a relation based system as no-one wants to immigrate without their spouse and young children. Now there is \*something \*of a policy for requesting e.g. adult children come over, but it’s an extremely slow and difficult process. The “chain” is already as broken as it could practically be. But of course there’s still room for the prez to screw over existing applicants. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/28 "2018-01-24T20:24:23Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I think it’s very misleading to call it a “relation based system”. > The majority of green cards go to skilled workers, and their spouse and young children. If that counts as relation-based then every country has a relation based system as no-one wants to immigrate without their spouse and young children. > > Now there is \*something \*of a policy for requesting e.g. adult children come over, but it’s an extremely slow and difficult process. > The “chain” is already as broken as it could practically be. But of course there’s still room for the prez to screw over existing applicants. Here are the numbers: > [@](#): > > IR-1 and CR-1 (conditional residence): These visas are for spouses. An immigrant who has been married to a US citizen for less than two years is a conditional resident, with a CR-1 visa. In 2016, the United States issued 133,465 IR-1 and CR-1 visas. > IR-2 and CR-2 (conditional residence): This visa is for unmarried children (under the age of 21) of US citizens. In 2016, the United States issued 67,381 IR-2 and CR-2 visas. > IR-3: These visas are for orphans who are adopted abroad by US citizens. In 2016, the United States issued 1,292 IR-3 visas. > IR-4: This visa is for orphans who are brought to the United States and the adoption process is conducted domestically. In 2016, the United States issued 566 IR-4 visas. > IR-5: These visas are for parents of US citizens who are 21 or older. In 2016, the United States issued 108,788 IR-5 visas > [@](#): > > F1: This visa is for unmarried sons or daughters of US citizens and their children under the age of 18. In 2016, the United States issued 21,800 F1 visas. > F2: This visa is for spouses, minor children and unmarried sons and daughters (21 and older) of green card holders or LPRs. In 2016, the United States issued 109,740 F2 visas. > F3: These visas are for married sons and daughters of US citizens and their spouses. F3 visas may also be issued to grandchildren of US citizens who are under the age of 18. In 2016, the United States issued 22,590 F3 visas. > F4: This visa is for siblings of adult US citizens and their spouses or minor children. In 2016, the United States issued 61,368 F4 visas. > **[US Visa Fast Facts | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/us/us-visa-fast-facts/index.html)** > > Read CNN’s Fast Facts about visas in the US and learn about travel documents for immigrants and international visitors. That constitutes a majority of permanent immigration to the US. Of course, those numbers don’t tell us the chain. But, you can see over 100,000 were for parents of US citizens, as an example. So you can see how it can branch out from One immigrant -\> Parents -\> Aunts/Uncles -\> Cousins. I am not aware of the actual numbers, but it’s clear that the growth in potential family relation immigrants is exponential. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/29 "2018-01-24T20:50:23Z")
Another reason to limit immigration is that we want to prevent balkanization. Immigrants do better and contribute more the quicker they are assimilated. By coming with the extended family it makes it easier for a person to live without having to learn the language or adopt American mores. This reduces the benefit of immigration to our country relative to someone from a different country who could assimilate quicker. Since immigration laws like all laws should be written primarily for the benefit of citizens they should maximize the chances of the new immigrants being beneficial to the country. ---
**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 25, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/30 "2018-01-25T06:01:30Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Here are the numbers: > > That constitutes a majority of permanent immigration to the US. I think you’ve missed my point though. If allowing skilled workers into the country, then allowing their immediate family in counts as “relative-based system” then everywhere has a relative-based system, and any immigration policy is a relative-based system, as skilled workers will not migrate without their family. > [@](#): > > Of course, those numbers don’t tell us the chain. But, you can see over 100,000 were for parents of US citizens, as an example. So you can see how it can branch out from One immigrant -\> Parents -\> Aunts/Uncles -\> Cousins. I am not aware of the actual numbers, but it’s clear that the growth in potential family relation immigrants is exponential. I would agree that \*potentially \*there’s a problem there, sure. If everyone could bring over their extended family, immediately, uncapped, then pretty soon you may have huge numbers of immigrants. I don’t agree that that’s the existing situation in the US. The rules for bringing over siblings are very different from bringing children or parents. Also there’s a big time lag as previously mentioned. Finally there are caps. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/31 "2018-01-25T07:06:54Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > This is from here, an interview with John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of San Diego, who studies immigration policy: > > [The Last Time the U.S. Seriously Considered Merit-Based Immigration - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/immigrants-merit-based/535974/) If “no darkies” seems to be the desire (expressed in code by most and more directly by Trump) then whats the problem with simnply specifying it in law? Like was done for the first 200 years of the US’s existance. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/32 "2018-01-25T07:08:24Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > From 1924 to 1952, almost all of the immigrants to this country were from Northern and Western Europe, Almost no Southern or Eastern Europeans could come to the country under the 1924 act. Even under the more liberal 1952 act, most immigrants to this country were coming from Ireland, the UK, and Germany. So the “Jews and Slavs and what have you” weren’t the majority of people who would benefit from family migration in the 1960s. The British and Irish, and Germans, and French would, because for the past 40 years, almost all the immigrants to the US were coming from Western Europe. I thought post WW2, the US took in lots of Eastern Europeans. Or was that under a different programme. ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/33 "2018-01-25T13:51:17Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you’ve missed my point though. If allowing skilled workers into the country, then allowing their immediate family in counts as “relative-based system” then everywhere has a relative-based system, and any immigration policy is a relative-based system, as skilled workers will not migrate without their family. You are right, I think, that few people would be willing to migrate without their spouses and minor children. But, is anyone advocating that? Plenty of people, I think, will be willing to come even if they can’t bring their siblings. Certainly they are willing to go to Europe or Canada under these conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/34 "2018-01-25T14:59:20Z")
> [@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. Family reunification could be considered racist in light of the history of immigration law. Prior to 1965, America had immigration quotas that highly favored western European countries and severely restricted immigration from Asian and African countries. This was starting to get very embarrassing for America so they repealed these restrictions an instituted a policy that allotted 3/4ths of all immigration lots to family reunification. This had the same racial effect that legacy preferences have in college and that the grandfather clause had on voting in the south. Well, now that all the white people have brought over their families and we don’t see much white family reunification. But initially it had the effect of limiting the vast majority of immigration to white countries. Now, family reunification is very commonly used by non-white sponsors to bring their family into the country. ---
**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 25, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/35 "2018-01-25T15:04:31Z")
> [@zimaane](#): > > You are right, I think, that few people would be willing to migrate without their spouses and minor children. But, is anyone advocating that? I don’t know; there’s a lot of mischaracterizing of US immigration policy recently, beginning with the misleading term “chain migration”. It’s difficult to bring over siblings, and takes many years. If we were having a sober debate of “Should we make it _even harder_ / impossible to bring siblings, or loosen it slightly?” then that’s fine. Instead people are talking as if it’s Hardhome on GOT. > [@](#): > > Plenty of people, I think, will be willing to come even if they can’t bring their siblings. Certainly they are willing to go to Europe or Canada under these conditions. I agree, but I also think it makes sense to have some provision, some circumstances in which siblings can come. e.g. Having a US-citizen siblings should give you a bonus point when applying for a green card, even if it’s a much lower weighting than other factors. ---
**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 25, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/36 "2018-01-25T15:11:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Family reunification could be considered racist in light of the history of immigration law. > > Prior to 1965, America had immigration quotas that highly favored western European countries and severely restricted immigration from Asian and African countries. This was starting to get very embarrassing for America so they repealed these restrictions an instituted a policy that allotted 3/4ths of all immigration lots to family reunification. > > This had the same racial effect that legacy preferences have in college and that the grandfather clause had on voting in the south. Well, now that all the white people have brought over their families and we don’t see much white family reunification. But initially it had the effect of limiting the vast majority of immigration to white countries. > > Now, family reunification is very commonly used by non-white sponsors to bring their family into the country. Hence the standing point that since it were racists the ones that tried to prevent immigration of “undesirables” it is clear that the racists are the ones that are upset that it backfired on them. So they want to turn back what they setup. It does not change that therefore we can realize that it is mostly the racists the ones that want to turn it around. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/37 "2018-01-25T15:12:57Z")
> [@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. Nope, I think you nailed it in one. That’s the reason. There is a definite irony with this, considering our current PotUS has imported 2 out of 3 wives from other countries. But it’s OK when HE sponsors someone… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/38 "2018-01-25T15:14:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > This is from here, an interview with John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of San Diego, who studies immigration policy: > > [The Last Time the U.S. Seriously Considered Merit-Based Immigration - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/immigrants-merit-based/535974/) The “merit based” approach to immigration has its benefits but the timing of the revelation of its benefits is pretty racist. There is a hardcap on immigration of 675K/year. Family immigration accounts for over 480K of it. Employment accounts for about 140K/year. This does not leave a lot for asylum seekers and lottery or merit based immigration. ---
**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 25, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/39 "2018-01-25T15:21:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The “merit based” approach to immigration has its benefits but the timing of the revelation of its benefits is pretty racist. > > There is a hardcap on immigration of 675K/year. > > Family immigration accounts for over 480K of it. > > Employment accounts for about 140K/year. > > This does not leave a lot for asylum seekers and lottery or merit based immigration. That last point is a false dilemma as the policy was more humane in the past by allowing more asylum seekers in until El Trompo decided that it was inconvenient. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303/40 "2018-01-25T15:26:04Z")
I disagree with chain migration, and I’ll tell you why: Immigration policies should be in a nation’s interest. It is in our interest to bring in skilled workers. That’s the immigration strategy of most countries, and it should be ours. Now of course those skilled workers should be able to bring their spouse and kids. Where it gets less in the national interest is when you start throwing in their adult children, their parents, and their siblings. The reason it’s called chain migration is that this then leads to THOSE people bringing in their parents and siblings and adult children, so that even if we had a policy that admitted mainly skilled workers, you’ve got a chain that brings in dozens of unskilled, uneducated workers in for every one skilled worker. One way to fix this problem is to actually enforce the requirement that immigrants cannot be admitted if they are likely to become a burden on society. Like many things coded into immigration law, this is rarely enforced and is up to the discretion of the authorities. One good way to reform immigration law would be to do this: 1. Only someone over a certain income level can bring in family members 2. They are responsible for the support of the family members they bring in 3. Only spouses and dependents are eligible. Now while the term “chain migration” is a pejorative, Democrats framing of this policy as “family reunification” is also inaccurate. If one person immigrates to the US, you know the best way to unite him with his family? for him to return home. The choice to relocate is a very adult decision and it does not require a host country to make that easier by assuring that adult that he can bring everyone he loves with him eventually. If I relocate to Sweden I have no expectation that I can bring my Mom, my mother-in-law, and my wife’s siblings with me and get them free Swedish health care. And that my mom and mother-in-law can then bring in THEIR siblings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-case-against-chain-immigration/807303.md?page=3)