Immigration Reform

The Failures of the Current U.S. Immigration System, Explained

Immigration has been, and always will be, a hot topic of debate in our country’s politics. With each new president comes a new approach towards immigration policy, yet nothing ever seems to be truly resolved or reformed. This issue has been particularly controversial in recent years, as Democrats and Republicans butt heads under the Trump administration. Recent Democratic debates have seen candidates distance themselves from the president’s approach, and make clear their own stances on immigration reform.

So why is immigration such an important and polarizing issue? And what exactly are the main problems plaguing the current U.S. system? More importantly, why have reform efforts failed time and time again, and what is preventing the improvement needed? The rest of this article will provide explanations to each of these questions. 

1. When did everything go wrong?

The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 created new immigrant “categories” and an equal limit on immigration for every country.  

In 1965, President Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act into law. This created a global cap on immigration into the U.S., and placed people into different “categories” based on family, employment, and refuge. Each category received a specific immigration quota, or limit, with exceptions for immediate family members. This includes spouses, unmarried children, and parents. The bill also assigned all countries the same quota of 20,000 migrants per year. 

Although these changes were meant to improve the immigration system, they ultimately backfired. The unforeseen consequences of the Hart-Celler Act live on today, and continue to present lawmakers with new challenges. 

2. So what are these unforeseen consequences?

The numerical limit for each category is not enough. 

The creation of such restrictive immigrant categories led to extreme backlog in the system. Today, the U.S. limit for all immigrants from all countries is 226,000 for non-immediate family, 140,000 for employment, and 18,000 for refugees annually. Considering that 6 million people apply for visas every year, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, this is simply not enough. 

Because the number of applicants far exceeds the number of spots, there is an extremely long waiting list for people who do not make the cut. This backlog grows larger and larger by the day, and some may wait up to 20 or 30 years for entry. To make things worse, a lack of workers and the sheer complexity of the application and screening process makes the system even slower and more inefficient. 

Immediate family members became the number one source of immigration. 

Immediate family members are exempted from these categories, meaning they have no numerical limit and shorter waiting times. Although this exception was originally meant to reunite families quickly, it backfired by attracting loads of people to apply for entry. The result was, yet again, more backlog. So, even though there are no restrictions, immediate family members wait an average of 5 to 6 years to be reunited with their loved ones. 

“Chain migration” makes the immigration process even worse. This refers to the idea that when an immigrant is admitted to the U.S., their immediate family members automatically gain priority status and can apply for visas without limitations. Because people in other countries know they can be admitted to the U.S. more easily if their immediate family is already there, many are incentivized to apply for visas themselves. This “chain” creates an even larger pool of applicants who must wait to be processed, and families remain separated for even longer. 

Equal quotas put some countries at a disadvantage. 

Today, the immigration cap allotted to each foreign country is about 25,000 per year. During the 1960s when Hart-Celler was formed, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing. The non-discriminatory, “equality for all” mentality of the time encouraged lawmakers to treat all countries the same. 

What they failed to realize though, was that visa demand varies widely among different places in the world. Due to things like population size and distance from the U.S., some countries have much higher immigration rates than others. For example, the number of applicants from New Zealand pales in comparison to those from Mexico. To treat both countries the same is to exclude a large portion of the Mexican population, many of whom immigrate to the U.S. in hopes of a better life for themselves and their families. 

3. What challenges does this create for immigrants?

Refugees face persecution at home, while applicants and their families endure poverty and financial hardships. 

The Hart-Celler Act gave refugees only about 6% of visas each year. Recently, the Trump administration has reduced this limit even more. As mentioned, today’s immigration cap for refugees is a mere 18,000 per year. With such a small quota, many refugees are forced to remain in their home countries, where they are vulnerable to persecution, danger, or even death. 

On another note, the U.S.’s booming economy attracts many immigrants who hope to find employment and create a better life for themselves and their families. But because backlog and waiting periods are so extreme, many people who do not have access to economic opportunities in their home countries fall into poverty. For immediate family members who rely on each other for financial support, this problem is even more dire. Children who are not old enough to work for example, may be away from their parents for years. The emotional trauma of this separation complicates these families’ situations even further. 

4. How do these hardships encourage illegal immigration?

Illegal entry is the best option for some. 

Many people who cannot afford to put up with such long waiting times choose to immigrate to the U.S. illegally instead. Illegal entry is a much better option for those escaping persecution, poverty, and familial separation. So much so that about 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants reside in the country as of 2016, according to the Migration Policy Institute. 53% of these individuals are from Mexico. The implications of illegal immigration are vast and diverse, and legislative approaches to this issue have been messy as politicians try to figure out how to account for such a staggering amount of people. This added layer complicates disagreements among lawmakers, and further hinders true reform.

5. If reform is needed, why has it been so hard to achieve?

Ultimately, the Hart-Celler system backfired on itself by encouraging both legal and illegal immigration. It pulls in immediate family members and creates unbearable challenges for immigrants who have no choice but to enter illegally. The system has become so backlogged and inefficient that true reform seems almost impossible. Yet lawmakers have tried, and failed. 

Partisan divides create legislative gridlock. 

Because the immigration system is so large and complex, there is an abundance of problems that must be tackled by legislators. However, politicians cannot agree on anything. For example, where do we start? What do we focus on? Who should get priority?

This disagreement makes it extremely difficult to pass comprehensive laws that will reform the system in the way that it desperately needs. To make things worse, Democrats and Republicans have vastly different opinions about immigration in general. For example, while liberals often fight for more legalization of immigrants, conservatives push for enforcement mechanisms that would reduce illegal entry. 

Under the Trump administration, the parties have become extremely divided, which reduces the potential for cooperation even more. This was never more apparent than in January of 2018, when the Republican-controlled White House authorized a government shutdown. The shutdown came after House Democrats fought for the protection of DACA Dreamers and refused to fund President Trump’s border wall. Ultimately, an agreement could not be reached and neither of these issues were resolved successfully. As long as the parties continue to butt heads at such an extreme level, true reform will stall and the immigration system will remain ineffective. 

Term limits result in a lack of continuity. 

On top of partisan divides, every four years, there is the potential for a new president. Term limits ensure that no single individual holds too much power for too long. However, they also prevent a consistent approach towards immigration reform. As different politicians cycle through the presidency, approaches change and things are left unfinished. Again, the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, serves as a perfect example. In 2012, former president Obama instituted this program in hopes of protecting young undocumented children from deportation. President Trump however, rescinded DACA in September of 2017, leaving hundreds of thousands of kids vulnerable to enforcement procedures. Clearly, presidential term limits restrict lawmakers from effectively improving the current immigration system, a feat that could take decades to accomplish. 

6. Is there any hope?

A bottom-up approach may suit immigration reform better. 

While a comprehensive, federal approach to immigration reform has been unsuccessful so far, a “bottom-up” strategy may work better. This means that instead of relying on Congress to enact new legislation at the federal level, reform should begin at the local level. 

Communities throughout the country face different circumstances in terms of their immigrant residents. For example, while some states’ foreign-born populations are primarily from Mexico, other states’ majorities may be from China, India, or the Philippines. There is also wide variation in age, gender, sexual orientation, and family structure. Consequently, reform may be more effective if catered to states’ or counties’ specific demographics. This way, the unique needs of different immigrant identities can be met more directly.

Efforts to humanize immigrants have been effective. 

Furthermore, many advocacy groups have worked to “humanize” immigrants by making Americans sympathetic to the struggles they face. By spreading immigrants’ stories across the country, the public can become more receptive to the need for reform. This is exactly what happened when pictures and horror stories began to circle about the separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. The aggressive nature of border control shocked the American public, and many began to call for more effective, humane approaches to illegal immigration. With greater support, local governments can begin to address the needs of immigrants in their communities, as well as better integrate them into society. 

Sources:

- Dinan, Stephen. "Trump to cut refugees to 18,000, give localities veto over resettlement." The Washington Times, The Washington Times, LLC, 26 Sept. 2019.
- Gambino, Lauren. "Failed deal over Dreamers at the heart of US government shutdown." The Guardian, Guardian News & Media Limited, 20 Jan. 2018.
- Guo, Jeff. "Mexican immigrants will move for low-skill jobs. No one else will." The Washington Post, The Washington Post, 6 Aug. 2014.
- "How Many Immigration Applications are Filed Each Year?" Immigration Direct. 2020. 
- Ngai, Mae. 2010. “The Civil Rights Origins of Illegal Immigration.” International Labor and Working-Class History. 78: 93-99. 
- Reimers, David. 2013. “More Liberal Than We Thought: A Note on Immediate Family Member Immigrants of U.S. Citizens.” Journal of Policy History. 25 (2): 289-298. 
- Romo, Vanessa. "Trump Ends DACA, Calls on Congress to Act." NPR, edited by Martina Stewart, NPR, 5 Sept. 2017.
- Seaquist, Carla. "Immigration Reform: Go Incrementally, Mr. Obama, and Go Before November." HuffPost, HuffPost Politics, 21 Aug. 2014.
- Zong, Jie. "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States." Migration Policy Institute, edited by 10. Jeanne Batalova, Migration Policy Institute, 14 Mar. 2019.