scholarly journals The "Albatross" of Immigration Reform: Temporary Worker Policy in the United States

1986 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon M. Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Temporary Worker

scholarly journals The “Albatross” of Immigration Reform: Temporary Worker Policy in the United States

1986 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 995-1019
Author(s):  
Vernon M. Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Temporary Workers ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Temporary Worker ◽  
The Past ◽  
Employer Sanctions ◽  
Supply Problem

Temporary worker policy in the United States traditionally has been advocated as a means to meet shortages for labor — a demand problem. Over the past decade, however, there has been support for the use of such policies as a means of addressing illegal immigration — a supply problem. Despite the fact that experiences show that such endeavors actually foster illegal immigration, the drive for immigration reform in the 1980s was seriously encumbered with a variety of attempts both to expand existing and to add new temporary worker programs. This article reviews the evolution of temporary worker policy and indicates how efforts to admit more temporary workers complicated the immigration reform process. Indeed, it was not until the major temporary worker proposals were finally removed from the Simpson-Rodino Act — by the adoption of a highly controversial “second amnesty” program (i.e., the Schumer Amendment) — that passage of legislation was achieved. Because this program functioned as a bargaining chip in the effort to establish a system of employer sanctions, it is unlikely that this expedient measure will set a precedent for future replication. Hence, it can be anticipated that efforts will eventually be made to revive temporary worker policy and, in the process, rekindle the debate over this contentious issue.

scholarly journals National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
Immigration Debate ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Us Immigration

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.

Italian American Identity and Politics: World War II To the Cold War

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-48
Author(s):  
Danielle Battisti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
World War ◽  
Public Identity ◽  
Italian Americans ◽  
Italian American ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines Italian American loyalty campaigns during World War II as well as postwar campaigns to promote the democratic reconstruction of Italy. It argues that even though Italian Americans had made great strides toward political and social inclusion in the United States, they were still deeply concerned with their group’s public identity at mid-century. This chapter also demonstrates that in the course of their increased involvement with their homeland politics in the postwar period, Italian Americans gradually came to believe that the successful democratization of Italy (and therefore their own standing in the United States) was dependent upon relieving population pressures that they believed threatened the political and economic reconstruction of Italy. That belief played an important role in stirring Italian Americans to action on issues of immigration reform.

scholarly journals Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrisia Macías-Rojas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
War On Crime ◽  
Policy Arena

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff's departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law's deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law's widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA's enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA's criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008). Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA's most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA's criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA's criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the understudied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.

scholarly journals Global and Local Challenges to Refugee Protection

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52
Author(s):  
Silas W. Allard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Department Of Homeland Security ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
States Immigration ◽  
Continuous Presence ◽  
Global And Local

On October 12, 2017, the United States Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, took a short trip from Pennsylvania Avenue across the Potomac to Falls Church, Virginia. The Attorney General went to Falls Church to address personnel of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency that administers the United States’ immigration courts. The Attorney General's chosen topic for the day was “the fraud and abuse in our asylum system.” “Over the years,” the Attorney General argued, “Congress has rationally passed legislation designed to create an efficient and fair procedure to properly admit persons andexpedite the removalof aliens who enter the United States illegally.” The Attorney General is referring here to the “expedited removal” procedures that Congress created in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Expedited removal gives the Department of Homeland Security the power to deport, without a hearing, any person who was not admitted to the United States and who cannot prove continuous presence for the prior two years. The Department of Homeland Security currently exercises a narrower expedited removal authority pursuant to the Department's prosecutorial discretion. Only individuals apprehended within two weeks of entry and within 100 miles of a land border are subject to expedited removal, per Department regulations.

2 Mexico and the U.S.: Discord Among Neighbors

Worldview ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Denis Goulet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Border Studies ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
White House ◽  
The U.S

Mexico's two thousand-mile border with the United States is unarmed, but it remains the locus of sharp conflicts. Last October, House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill, bowing to pressure from the Hispanic Caucus, withdrew the Simpson- Mazzoli bill on immigration reform over White House objections that "it is in the best interests of all Americans to have the nation regain control of its borders." Jorge Bustamante, director of Mexico's Center for Border Studies, argues, however, that such a bill would "leave all migrant workers, whether documented or not, in a state of virtual slavery, since they will have no access to the courts to plead for justice."

Waiting Games: The Politics of US Immigration Reform

2009 ◽  
Vol 108 (717) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Susan F. Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
Comprehensive Reform ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Us Immigration

What the United States needs now is comprehensive reform achieved incrementally to ensure the effectiveness and test the impact of new approaches. Such a strategy has a better chance of convincing skeptics on both sides of the debate.

New Italian Migrations to the United States

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Cultural Significance ◽  
White Ethnicity ◽  
Italian Americans ◽  
Italian Immigration ◽  
Migration History ◽  
Immigrant Narrative ◽  
The Cold War

This book challenges the conventional Italian immigrant narrative through a re-evaluation of the political, social, and cultural significance of Italian emigration to the United States in the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century. Interdisciplinarity and transnationalism serve as the book’s operating approaches to documenting and evaluating aspects of this underexplored history and analyzing how on-going Italian immigration to the United States relates to community development, politics, group identity, and consumerism. The essays in this collection focus on such topics as immigration reform during the Cold War on the part of the Italian government and Italian Americans organized by the American Committee on Italian Migration (ACIM), women’s struggles for family reunification in light of the McCarran-Walter Act, a micro-analysis of immigrant replenishment in Boston’s North End, the emergence of a new-second generation Guido youth culture in Brooklyn, and ethnic-political brokers’ mobilization of dual citizens to vote in both U.S. and Italian elections. The afterword discusses the book’s articles on working-class immigrants and elite immigrants in relationship to migration history and periodization. At its most basic, this collection contributes to a larger conversation about the complex understanding of U.S. white ethnicity as multivalent, unstable, and at times contradictory, rather than as a fixed category following a universal historical process that leads to white privilege and ethnic assimilation.

Foreign-Born Faculty: A Hidden Population

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Amy Carattini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
Skilled Workers ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Hidden Population ◽  
Media Attention

In a recent plea for immigration reform, President Obama called for lawmakers to endorse policy that would encourage highly skilled workers to stay in the United States (Yellin 2013). Yet, favorable legal policy is no guarantee that these skilled and highly mobile international professionals would choose to stay. Skilled workers are generally able to move in and out of the broad current of immigration flows, without causing the disruptive ripples that generate nation-state/media attention. In fact, it is often assumed that they integrate seamlessly (Favell, Feldblum, and Smith 2007; Freidenberg 2011). More research is needed to identify this population and to understand their motivations, needs, and experiences. Through an in-depth examination of life courses, the study reported on here seeks to acquire better knowledge of this population in order to determine whether their stays might be permanent or transitory and to inform appropriate policymaking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document