scholarly journals Making Citizenship an Organizing Principle of the US Immigration System: An Analysis of How and Why to Broaden Access to Permanent Residence and Naturalization for New Americans

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren ◽  
Charles Wheeler
2021 ◽  
pp. 233150242110355
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren ◽  
Charles Wheeler

This paper proposes that the United States treat naturalization not as the culmination of a long and uncertain individual process, but as an organizing principle of the US immigration system and its expectation for new Americans. It comes at a historic inflection point, following the chaotic departure of one of the most nativist administrations in US history and in the early months of a new administration whose executive orders, administrative actions, and legislative proposals augur a different view of immigrants and immigration. The paper examines two main ways that the Biden–Harris administration can realize its immigration, naturalization and integration goals: i.e., by expanding access to permanent residence and by increasing naturalization numbers and rates. First, it proposes administrative and, to a lesser degree, legislative measures that would expand the pool of eligible-to-naturalize immigrants. Second, it identifies three underlying factors—financial resources, English language proficiency, and education—that strongly influence naturalization rates. These factors must be addressed, in large part, outside of and prior to the naturalization process. In addition, it provides detailed estimates of populations with large eligible-to-naturalize numbers, populations that naturalize at low rates, and populations with increasing naturalization rates. It argues that the administration's immigration strategy should prioritize all three groups for naturalization. The paper endorses the provisions of the US Citizenship Act that would place undocumented and temporary residents on a path to permanent residence and citizenship, would reduce family- and employment-based visa backlogs, and would eliminate disincentives and barriers to permanent residence. It supports the Biden-Harris administration's early executive actions and proposes additional measures to increase access to permanent residence and naturalization. It also endorses and seeks to inform the administration's plan to improve and expedite the naturalization process and to promote naturalization. The paper's major findings regarding the eligible-to-naturalize population include the following: In 2019, about 74 percent, or 23.1 million, of the 31.2 million immigrants (that were eligible for naturalization) had naturalized. Three states—Indiana, Arizona, and Texas—had naturalization rates of 67 percent, well below the national average of 74 percent. Fresno, California had the lowest naturalization rate (58 percent) of the 25 metropolitan (metro) areas with the largest eligible-to-naturalize populations, followed by Phoenix at 66 percent and San Antonio and Austin at 67 percent. Four cities in California had rates of 52–58 percent—Salinas, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Santa Maria-Santa Barbara. McAllen, Laredo, and Brownsville had the lowest naturalization rates in Texas. Immigrants from Japan had the lowest naturalization rate (47 percent) by country of origin, followed by four countries in the 60–63 percent range—Mexico, Canada, Honduras, and the United Kingdom. Guatemala and El Salvador each had rates of 67 percent. Median household income was $25,800, or 27 percent, higher for the naturalized population, compared to the population that had not naturalized (after an average of 23 years in the United States for both groups). In the past 10 years, naturalization rates for China and India have fallen, and rates for Mexico and Central America have increased (keeping duration of residence constant). In short, the paper provides a roadmap of policy measures to expand the eligible-to-naturalize population, and the factors and populations that the Biden–Harris administration should prioritize to increase naturalization rates, as a prerequisite to the full integration and participation of immigrants, their families, and their descendants in the nation's life.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Maria Hagan ◽  
Ricardo Martinez-Schuldt ◽  
Alyssa Peavey ◽  
Deborah M. Weissman

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) created an immigration system favoring the immigration of spouses, children, and parents of US citizens, thereby establishing family unity as the cornerstone of US immigration policy. Despite this historical emphasis on family unity, backlogs and limited visas for non-immediate relatives of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, punitive measures for those who enter without inspection, such as the forced separation of children from their parents at the US border, and an aggressive policy of deportation have made it more difficult for members of Mexican binational families to unify. How do members of Mexican binational families manage the hardships that result from US immigration policies that prolong and force family separation? Immigrants and return migrants alike may not be aware of their rights and the legal remedies that exist to enforce them. Structural barriers such as poverty, legal status, fear of deportation, lack of proficiency in English, and lack of familiarity with government bureaucracies no doubt prevent many migrants in the United States and return migrants in Mexico from coming forward to request legal assistance and relief in the courts. Despite these barriers, when it comes to family matters, members of some Mexican binational families can and do assert their rights. In this article, we analyze an administrative database of the Department of Legal Protection of the Mexican consular network that documents migrant legal claims resulting from family separation, along with findings from 21 interviews with consular staff and community organizations in three consular jurisdictions — El Paso, Raleigh, and San Francisco — to investigate the sociolegal processes of claims. Our investigation centers on the mediating role the Mexican state — via its consular network — has developed to assist binational families as they attempt to assert their rights and resolve child support and child custody problems resulting from prolonged and forced family separation. We find that the resolution of binational family claims in part depends on the institutional infrastructure that has developed at local, state, and federal levels, along with the commitment and capacity of the receiving and sending states and the binational structures they establish. These binational structures transcend the limitations of national legal systems to achieve and implement family rights and obligations across borders.


Author(s):  
G. Balachandran

This essay explores the maritime migration network between Asia and America by way of Europe during the first half of the twentieth century. It pays particular attention to the maritime activity of ‘lascar’ seamen, and the movement of labour between Britain, America, India, China, and Hong Kong. It examines the changes that underwent the network over time, the quantities of migrants and their intended destinations, and the period of upheaval caused by each World War. It also examines the racial, social, political, and cultural factors that shaped British and US immigration policies during the period. It concludes by stating that the US was undoubtedly a primary destination for Asian labourers, despite the well-broatcast perils relating to wages, racism, nationalism, and subjugation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 92-102
Author(s):  
Paul Wickham Schmidt

Executive Summary This article provides an overview and critique of US immigration and asylum policies from the perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. The article offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens), associate members (lawful permanent residents, refugees, and “asylees”), friends (nonimmigrants and holders of temporary status), and persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations and recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and constitutional rights that extend to noncitizens. It ends with a series of recommendations for reform of the US asylum system, and a short conclusion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-105
Author(s):  
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera

The present article analyzes the responses to US border security policies and particularly US immigration policy by activists, migrants, and progressive actors during the Trump era. It explains new forms of popular resistance in the US and south of its border, as well as their effects in national politics, policies and geopolitics. This analysis focuses on migrant caravans and related protest movements. Finally, this article provides preliminary explanations of such phenomena that include considerations of geopolitics, philanthropy, and the plausible utilization of counterinsurgency tactics.


Author(s):  
Esther Alvarez López

Abstract: Always a controversial issue, the US ‘immigration problem’ expresses anxieties over the nation’s changing ethnic demographics, leading to the creation of exclusionary boundaries that are manifested in media prejudices and immigration rhetoric, controversial enforcement policies and questions about citizenship. Gregory Nava’s Bordertown, Sergio Arau’s A Day Without a Mexican, and Nickleodeon’s Dora the Explorer critically address the immigration issue using an outlaw discourse that seeks to challenge the effects of a pervasive ideological anti-immigration rhetoric threatening to destroy an old national ethos. Resumen: El ‘problema de la inmigración’ en Estados Unidos refl eja miedos en torno a la cambiante demografía étnica de la nación que han llevado a la creación de líneas divisorias excluyentes, puestas de manifi esto en prejuicios y una retórica de la inmigración en los medios, en políticas controvertidas y en cuestiones relativas a la ciudadanía. Ciudad del Silencio, de Gregory Nava; Un día sin mexicanos, de Sergio Arau, y Dora la Exploradora examinan el tema de la inmigración, desafi ando con su discurso ‘outlaw’ los efectos de una retórica ideológica anti-inmigrante que amenaza con destruir uno de los valores de la nación.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104-122
Author(s):  
Katherine Soltis ◽  
Madeline Taylor Diaz

This article addresses the failures of the United States immigration system to protect Central American minors who were trafficked for exploitation in criminal activities by gangs. In particular, it focuses on the ways in which the US immigration system denies humanitarian protection to Central American minors who were forced to participate in criminal activity by the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and 18th Street gangs, and instead detains them. The article will examine this trend in the context of a larger proclivity to criminalise immigration in the US, particularly minors fleeing violence in Central America. We draw upon our experience representing Central American minors in their applications for humanitarian immigration relief to highlight how the US immigration system fails to protect this vulnerable population and penalises these children for their own victimisation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document