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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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:
Only someone over a certain income level can bring in family members
They are responsible for the support of the family members they bring in
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.
Especially as it’s controversial in the “pro-family” party. :dubious: