INTRODUCTION

America is often called a nation of immigrants. From the 17th century “discovery” period on, except for Native Americans, everyone or their forebears came from another part of the world, mainly Europe and Africa. Even after we became a sovereign nation, the demand was so great for settlers, farmers and workers that the issue of nationality hardly arose. One of the first United States immigration laws was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, aimed at curtailing further Chinese immigration. Until then, Chinese laborers had been encouraged to come to build the transcontinental railway. Japanese immigration was likewise stemmed in 1907 by the so-called “Gentleman’s Agreement.” Deportation of persons entering the U. S. “illegally” began in 1891 around the time when the greatest numbers of immigrants were arriving in the country, and continued into the mid-1920s. The 1924 Immigration Act set up a national quota system with preference given to people of European origin based on the percentage of people of the same national origin already residing in the United States. Meanwhile, the immigration of “Orientals” was prohibited.

With several modifications, the above system continued until the mid-1960s. In the midst of that liberal era, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act changed the quota system from discriminating against certain nationalities or races to allotting visas based on a generally first-come-first-served selection process. Preference was given to (1) family members of “resident aliens” or “naturalized citizens” with the goal of “family reunification”; (2) persons with needed skills and occupations; and (3) in accordance with United Nations guidelines and, later, the 1980 U. S. Refugee Act, designated persons “of special / humanitarian concern to the United States.” Refugee and asylum admissions are not subject to numerical limits.

After 1989 and the end of the Cold War between Western democracies and the Communist world, another era of widespread immigration ensued, and has grown ever since. “Small wars” among and within newly independent states often led to the dislocation of people who sought refuge abroad. A combination of factors encouraged economic migration on a grand scale from poor to more affluent countries (mainly Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia). Globalization of economies has further encouraged immigration, much of it illegal. Humane and liberal countries like those in Scandinavia, Western Europe (Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France) and the United States found themselves besieged by poor second and third world people in need of employment and social services. Some of these countries experienced a backlash by anti-immigrant political parties which achieved some prominence in local and even national elections.

In the United States social services are generally provided at the local or state level, while immigration policy is mainly made at the national level. Thus, major receiving areas like California, Texas and other southwestern border states were forced to pay for the rapid growth in demand for services. While there has been no rise in public support for anti-immigrant political parties, concern has been widespread, especially in times of economic decline, such as the early 2000s.

Some scholars argue that immigrants, documented and undocumented, do the work that no one else wants to do, pay taxes and are needed for jobs which our society of a declining working age population does not produce enough workers to fill.

PRIOR LEGISLATION

As we look back at the past several decades of immigration policy in the United States, the legislation which was most influential and controversial was:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, known as President Reagan’s “blanket amnesty” of all undocumented immigrants in this country at that time, and in response,

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which aimed to crack down on what appeared to many Americans to be illegal immigration run-wild.

Both pieces of legislation were enacted in an atmosphere of increased population migration world wide, from more agrarian countries to more industrialized and post-industrial ones. Increased immigration was facilitated by easier and cheaper international travel, not to mention the availability of more “organized for pay” immigrant smuggling operations. Instant communication played a role, as did the availability of forged documents.

Undocumented immigration is particularly controversial, although efforts to address it often have affected documented immigrants negatively as well. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon outside Washington, there has been the additional fear that there may be terrorists among those who cross our borders. (The group which perpetrated those attacks actually had been issued valid visas by the U. S. Consular Service.) One response to 9/11 was to absorb the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the new Department of Homeland Security in March, 2003. As immigration has become more of a security issue, visas are more difficult to obtain which, for example, has discouraged many talented and desirable foreign students from attending American colleges and universities. In the short run, these institutions complain of the loss of an important source of financial support and diversity. As pointed out in a recent forum, the U. S. administration is discouraging the very people from abroad whom we want to attract.

There is a quandary among Americans over the value of unchecked immigration versus the plight of the undocumented immigrant, depending on one’s perspective. As mentioned, major receiving areas of the country are disproportionately impacted when their local and state tax dollars go for services utilized heavily by undocumented immigrants. Vigilante groups of landowners have sometimes appeared in southwestern border states opposing the use of their property as routes to travel from Mexico into the United States. In the November 2004 election, a ballot issue passed in Arizona denying all public services to undocumented immigrants, except education of their children. (In California, a similar ballot issue had passed the year before, but was struck down by the courts.) On the other hand, there are other Americans whose values or religious faith prompts them to lend a helping hand to people in need, such as undocumented immigrants. For example, there were the churches which provided places to sleep and meals across America to the “Immigrant Freedom Riders” in busses traveling in 2003 from Los Angeles to New York and Washington, D.C. to publicize their cause.

Newspapers often print human interest stories about the problems faced by documented and undocumented immigrants caught up in some of the draconian, often unforeseen and unintended effects of the 1996 Immigration Reform Law. For example, there was the immigrant mother married to an American and her baby, both residents of the United States, who couldn’t get back into the country after a quick trip to Europe to introduce the child to the new overseas grandparents. It took Congressional intervention to readmit them. There are numerous accounts of immigrants asserting refugee status who, for expediency’s sake under the 1996 immigration law, are returned to their country-of-origin to face dire consequences, having been processed by a customs official with a few hours’ training instead of an experienced judge.

In addition to those negatively disposed toward undocumented immigrants and those prompted by their humanitarian value system are the immigrants’ American employers. Recognizing that the demand for cheap undocumented immigrant services in the U. S. was often as strong a “pull” factor as the immigrants’ desire to find better paying work than at home, Congress inserted severe penalties for employers who hired undocumented immigrants into the 1996 immigration law. Along with many parts of that law which were reversed by subsequent amendment, employers often found ways around the requirement for compliance; enforcement was often weak. From powerful businesses and corporations with political clout to housewives and one-pick-up-truck “construction firms” that need occasional day laborers but cannot afford, or choose not to pay them according to U. S. labor standards, there has been an influential lobby opposed to “too strict” undocumented immigration legislation. Labor unions and others have called attention to the impact of a large, cheap labor pool upon the decline in incomes of unskilled American workers in certain localities. Moreover, with fewer foreign students attending American universities, employers may miss the foreign graduates upon whom they have relied to augment native born applicants for specialized higher level positions. Reports suggest that while bright overseas graduates might prefer to enroll in American colleges and graduate schools, many consider the visa process not worth the effort; they are instead applying to institutions in Canada, England or Australia.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

After the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack, efforts to initiate any relaxation of immigration laws were deferred in light of the U. S. homeland security concerns. Visa limitations and increased border security precluded any priority given to a possible guest worker program with Mexico. Anyway, many Republicans were opposed to the idea. President Fox of Mexico was visibly disappointed, citing such grievances against undocumented Mexican workers as unsafe conditions along the border and abuses against them once in the United States.

One such issue in 2003 was U. S. plans to execute 51 Mexican citizens convicted of capital crimes here in ten different states, 28 in California and 16 in Texas alone. The case was taken to the International Court of Justice (World Court) which asked for a stay of execution, arguing that the persons failed to be informed of their rights to seek Mexican consular representation. Of course, many U.S. states allow for capital punishment; Mexico does not.

Shortly after this controversy the Fox administration offered U. S. citizens of Mexican origin living in the U. S. dual citizenship. This consisted of a Mexican passport and identification, but not, as has sometimes been reported, voting rights in Mexican elections. The purpose was to make their return visits to Mexico easier, and presumably took into consideration the immigrant’s substantial remittances home. Reportedly, after oil, remittances were the most lucrative source of Mexico’s income.

Of course, the potential benefits of dual citizenship hardly applied to the undocumented worker, who lived at the generosity – or lack thereof – of often unscrupulous employers. They can be fired at will or not paid what they are promised; they have no legal recourse.

To bring public attention to undocumented immigrants’ plight in September of 2003, 18 busloads of people, some of whom were undocumented (from China, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Mexico and the Philippines) set out from Los Angeles to “one hundred American cities and towns.” They called themselves the Immigrant Workers Freedom Riders and ended up in Queens, New York and Washington, D.C. They slept in churches along the way; church groups and others prepared food for them. They were otherwise supported by public donations and labor unions (which hoped eventually to recruit some of them as members.) With rallies and skits they explained their agenda: (1) calling for Congress to grant them legal status as President Reagan had done in 1986 to all the undocumented workers in the United States. (2) more family reunification visas (which were curtailed to the nuclear, not extended, family by the Immigration Reform Act of 1996), and (3) increased workplace protection because they were frequently exploited. One memorable sign that they carried at a stopover in Palm Springs read: “Immigrants are today’s slaves. I cut your grass, I make your bed, I wash your dishes, I pick your fruit. I refuse to be invisible.”

Guest Worker Proposal

In January, 2004 the Bush White House proposed a new guest worker program. Several sources at the time mentioned the administration’s desire to attract increased numbers of Hispanic voters in the fall presidential election. (Except for those of Cuban background in Florida, Hispanics had tended to vote Democratic.) On January 8 both the Washington Post and the International Herald Tribune announced that President Bush was “taking on an issue he shelved after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The proposal offered the by then eight million plus estimated undocumented immigrants in the U. S. eligibility for “temporary legal status for up to six years as long as they are employed, but would not automatically put them on the path to either citizenship or permanent residency status.”

Temporary workers would have employee benefits like the minimum wage and due process accorded to those who were “legally employed.” They could travel freely between the U. S. and their home countries, and would be permitted to apply for a “green card” granting permanent residency to the United States. These provisions would apply to other countries as well as Mexico, whose undocumented nationals were also eligible to apply for ‘guest worker’ status, “provided there was no American to take the job” … they would “match willing workers with willing employers.”

At best the President’s proposal was intended in part to appeal to Hispanic-Americans. Despite President Fox’s embrace of the proposal at the economic summit in Monterrey, Mexico, which both Fox and Bush attended a week after the announcement, the plan was not popular with Republican members of Congress and ultimately President Bush did not make an effort to promote it during the election campaign.

With the 2004 election over, and the Hispanic vote rising from 35 to 44%for Bush, it may be supposed that the President’s “good intentions” were rewarded. In any event, within a week after the election in which the American President was returned to office, Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Mexico City at a U.S.-Mexico Bi-national Commission meeting announcing to a cautious President Fox the Bush plan to make the roughly 8 plus million undocumented immigrants eligible for temporary legal status in the United States. They would retain this status for at least six years, as long as they were employed. These “temporary workers” would be expected to leave the U. S. eventually. Of course, the plan would require the cooperation of the U. S. Congress.

There was skepticism in Congress about President Bush’s plan. The same election which amounted to a Republican “sweep” of the executive and legislative branches of government had given the President encouragement to revisit the immigration bill cognizant of the INS becoming part of the Homeland Security Department. The head of North American Affairs in the Mexican Foreign Ministry, Gironimo Gutierrez, suggested that Mexico realized that the debate over immigration changed after September 11 in the United States. Mexico understands that immigration is now considered a homeland security issue and believes that creating a safe, legal and orderly flow of workers into the United States enhances the nation’s security.

One may wonder why so much attention is paid to Mexico, California and the southwest when undocumented immigrants are now living in many more areas of the United States, including Maryland. The answer appears to be that of the conservatively estimated 8 plus million undocumented residents in the United States, 69% were from Mexico in 2000, up from 58% in 1990. Most of these settled in the border states. During the 1990s the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into being, and Mexico experienced an economic downturn, both of which probably influenced the high rate of immigration. Thus, more than 2/3 of undocumented immigrants in the U. S. are Mexican nationals. Thirty percent of these were in California in 2003, which had 2.2 million undocumented residents. The second highest percentage resided in Texas, just over 1 million in 2003, less than half the number in California.

After Mexico, the next highest countries of origin for undocumented immigrants are El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, China, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic and Brazil. Excluding Mexico, the other “top ten” countries from which undocumented residents emigrated comprise no more than 3% of the total. Notable is the fact that four of the leading contributors to the United States’ undocumented population are in Central America. Their citizens likely enter the U. S. through the southwest border states, including California and Texas.

NEW LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Near the end of the 108th Congress, immediately after the November 2, 2004 presidential election, President Bush announced that among other actions he would keep his promise to introduce a new immigration bill to Congress, which looked very much like the January ‘04 proposal. A new intelligence reform bill was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate whose members returned from holiday vacation for two days for that purpose. Previously, there was speculation that the immigration reform bill might be contained in this new direction in security undertaken by the old INS, now under Homeland Security. The thrust of the intelligence bill which was passed in December 2004 was its influence on immigration issues. It provided for 2,000 more border guards and 800 immigration agents per year for five years; and increased criminal penalties for smuggling undocumented immigrants. On December 6 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert “promised to include immigration provisions in package of ‘must pass’ legislation early next year. Some members, however, said the promise might prove empty. The White House and Senate, they note, are much less receptive to sharp crackdowns on undocumented immigration than are many House members. ‘There’s a real lack of confidence that we’ll get a bill to secure our borders,’ said Rep. Tom Ferney (R-Fla).”

Action did not come quickly. Months later, on May 20, 2005, The New York Times reported that a bi-partisan group of legislators had introduced a major immigration bill the week before. The Times said that, “The long-awaited legislation comes from Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy and Representatives Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe, both Republicans from Arizona, and Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat from Illinois. Senator McCain said as he introduced the bill that it embraced the goals set down by Mr. Bush: making the borders more secure, filling jobs no American will take and finding a route to legality for workers who are already here illegally.”

The Times also reported that “At the center of this bill is a new temporary visa program that would allow foreign workers to fill jobs that no Americans will take. Undocumented immigrants already in the country would be eligible for these visas, which could last up to six years. To apply for permanent status, these workers would have to clear a number of hurdles, including security checks and requirements to pay back taxes and fines of $2,000 or more, and be proficient in English. Even then, they would go to the back of the immigration line. That process should be difficult enough to keep this from being an amnesty program, but not be so daunting that nobody would bother to try.”

Members of Congress hold a wide range of views about the best solutions to meet the challenges of undocumented immigrants, however. For example, Washington Post columnist Marcela Sanchez reported on July 29, 2005 that “A bill introduced last week by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) shows little concern for getting millions of undocumented immigrants to accept its terms and yet requires their cooperation for success. The bill demands that the undocumented present themselves to government officials, pay a fine and submit to deportation. Once in their countries of origin, they could apply for a new guest-worker program that would grant them a temporary work visa but would send them back for at least one year once that visa expires.”

Other legislation, both more restrictive and more permissive, may be introduced during the fall session. All immigration reform proposals will probably confront major challenges reflecting the many strongly-held, diverse opinions in Congress and in the country.

This fact sheet compiled by Marilyn Tinsman and Mary Burnet of the International Relations Committee of LWVMC; also contributing were Sally Roman and Connie Tonat of the Responding to Montgomery County’s Changing Demographics (New Americans) Committee