Immigration Milestones: 1965: Family Reunification Replaces National Quotas, Part 1

by Tom Shuford
Columnist EdNews.org

Before 1965, 95 percent of the new immigrants had come from Europe. After 1965, 95 percent came from the Third World. The 1965 act has transformed American society . . . (Steven Gillon, historian, University of Oklahoma, at the annual conference of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in 2005)

There are many "immigration milestones" of great importance in understanding today's immigration dilemma: There is the 5-4 Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court decision of 1982 which ruled that Texas must educate children in that state illegally. There was the nullification of California's Proposition 187 in 1999 by then governor Gray Davis, who dropped a winnable appeal of a federal judge's ruling against the measure. (Prop 187 would have denied many services to illegal aliens and set the stage for a rehearing of the Plyler decision.)

There is "automatic birthright citizenship" for children born in the U. S. to illegal alien parents. This policy stems from a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. It has produced the "anchor baby" phenomenon: illegal alien father + illegal alien mother = American citizen baby. (1)

As important as any of these milestones is the 1986 amnesty of 2.7 million illegal aliens. The '86 amnesty was a classic political bait-and-switch. The "bait" the politicians held out to the public was the promise of civil and criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens — in return for an amnesty for illegal aliens in the country since 1982 or who had worked in agriculture for 90 days. The "switch" was to minimal enforcement of employer sanctions after the Immigration and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was passed — and then, in recent years, to virtually nonexistent enforcement.

However feckless the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the federal government have been in establishing these dubious immigration "milestones," none would be of much consequence were it not for the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, which abolished the national origins quota system then in place, which tailored immigrant admissions to mirror prior admissions by national origin, thereby favoring immigrants from Europe, and replaced it with the "family reunification" provisions that drive today's high levels of legal immigration, almost exclusively from Latin America and Asia.

Ostensibly, the 1965 Immigration Act opened the U. S. to immigration from the rest of the world on an equal basis. But its family reunification provisions are actually biased towards the countries of origin of the most recent immigrants — that is immigrants who still have extended family abroad. The result has been "chain migration" from these parts of the world:

"Chain migration refers to the mechanism by which foreign nationals are allowed to immigrate by virtue of the ability of previous immigrants to send for their adult relatives. In the United States, chain migration is one of many reasons that legal immigration has quadrupled from levels during the 1960s. As such, it is one of the primary causes of the United States' current record-breaking immigrant population boom." (Wikipedia)

Chain migration was originally about keeping a nuclear family together. Since the late 1950's, however, chain migration policies have allowed immigrants to also send for their adult children and their spouses and for their parents and adult children of their parents. Those parents and adult children, in turn, can send for their children, their parents, and adult children of their parents — in an endless chain.

In 1982 Theodore White, a Pulitzer-Prize winning historian, would write of the Immigration Act of 1965: It was "noble, revolutionary — and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society."

In weighing the measure's nobility against its thoughtlessness on a metaphorical balance beam, I find the scales heavily tilted towards the latter. The majority of the 87th Congress that passed the Hart-Celler Act in1965 had no idea what they were doing. Typical comments:

Then — and current — senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy:

"Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same . . . the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . . . The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965)

Attorney General Robert Kennedy:

"The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced . . . It [the proposed bill] would increase the amount of authorized immigration by only a fraction." (The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1964)

There were a few with foresight: Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition:

" ...the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome . . . for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands . . .
"

"Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965)

The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed the Senate by a vote of 76 to 18; it passed the House 326 to 69.

And what is the result?

"The act has transformed the social, political, economic, ethnic and cultural landscape of American society. The ending of the national origins quotas from Asia, and rapid population growth and lack of economic development in Latin America . . . allowed an unprecedented mass entry of people from those regions . . . The law's emphasis on family reunification ensured that those through the door first would be able to bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developed nations."(Wikipedia via Answers.com)

There is a self-enhancing quality of mass immigration that was also not anticipated: Immigration builds on itself, becoming evermore difficult to stop:

"Immigration reinforces immigration. Once one group has come, it's easier for the next group, and then for subsequent groups. Immigration is not a self-limiting process, it's a self-enhancing process. Also, particularly in this country [the U. S.], the longer immigration continues the more difficult politically it is to stop it . . . the leaders of immigrant organizations and interest groups . . . have a vested interest in expanding their own constituency. And hence, as immigration continues to enjoy political support, organizational support for it also mounts and it becomes more and more difficult to limit or reshape it." (Samuel P. Huntington, November, 2000)

Resistance

Only because of the Internet, there is serious resistance to accelerating legal and illegal immigration. Two groups are effectively challenging immense and relentless forces pressing for open borders and lax enforcement — primarily business and ethnic pressure groups. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is known for its research and legal and policy expertise and for its email alerts/analyses. NumbersUSA is famous for its "action buffet," tailored to its members' desired level of involvement.

Had it not been for FAIR and NumbersUSA, it is likely that S. 2611, also known as McCain-Kennedy, would have passed Congress and been signed by the president. S. 2611 would have given amnesty to most of the 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in the United States and would have doubled legal immigration.

Today Washington is largely paralyzed, torn between a president and Senate committed to amnesty — 23 Republicans were joined by 39 Democrats in passing S. 2611 in the senate — and a House which favors trying enforcement first, including workplace enforcement.

For a look at the immigration "report cards" of your representative and your two senators, on the U. S. map at the Americans for Better Immigration site, click on your state. Americans for Better Immigration is associated with NumbersUSA.

There are other major sources of resistance. On cable television, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has one or two "Broken Borders" segments each weekday night (6 P. M). The Stein Report (Dan Stein is president of FAIR) focuses on key developments. American Patrol links to stories of the day, and VDARE.com provides provocative analysis via its daily essay and blog.

Whatever your views on the immigration challenge, everyone needs a basic knowledge of how we came to this point. That means understanding Plyler v. Doe, Proposition 187, automatic birthright citizenship, the 1986 amnesty and, above all, the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

Endnote

1) Since I wrote "Automatic Birthright Citizenship: An Emerging Crisis," the Houston Chronicle has produced a remarkable hospital-level view of how this particular incentive for illegal immigration affects border states, "Border baby boom strains S. Texas," September 24, 2006. The text of the report has been preserved by FreeRepublic.com. Excerpt from opening paragraphs:

"RIO GRANDE CITY — First it was a trickle, now it's a flood.

"Rising numbers of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America are streaming into Texas to give birth, straining hospitals and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, health officials say.

"Doctors and health officials say they are overwhelmed by both the new arrivals and those immigrant mothers who already are in the state . . . Immigrants 'want a U.S.-born baby' and know that emergency room staffers don't collect any money up front, said Dr. Mario Rodriguez, an obstetrician in Starr County."

Tom Shuford tomshuford@aol.com is a retired teacher living in Lenoir, North Carolina.

For the links in the article http://www.ednews.org/articles/3512/...t-1/Page1.html

http://www.ednews.org/articles/3512/1/I ... Page1.html