American immigration has supported unity and family values
 |
| Family immigration |
Donald Trump has embraced the rhetoric of “chain migration” to spread the message that the United States is legally letting in too many of the wrong kind of immigrant.
That term, however, distorts the facts.
Another article about this subject is also published on Politico here.
The Myth of Chain Migration
The Myth of Chain Migration
As a scholar on U.S. immigration law and policy, I’d like to correct and contextualize the numbers on the now maligned “family-based immigration,” and uncover the biases that underlie the preference for the “highly-skilled” immigrant. Family immigration is subject to significant limitations and it exists because American values include ideals such as family unification.
To support these cuts, President Trump alleged in his first State of the Union address that current law creates a chain of migration that allows immigrants to sponsor “unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” This claim is untrue.
With few exceptions, all lawful permanent immigration to the United States is subject to annual limits. Moreover, no single nation may send more than 7 percent of the overall total number of immigrants coming to the United States in a given year. Only U.S. citizens can sponsor immediate relatives – their spouses, minor and unmarried children and parents – without these limits. In recent years, immediate relatives have comprised nearly half of all family immigration to the United States.
All family immigration categories except immediate relatives are severely backlogged, and in particular for nations with high levels of immigration to the United States.
In fact, applicants for family immigration from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines face wait times of up to 20 years. According to the U.S. State Department, approximately 3.9 million immigrants are waiting in line for an opportunity to immigrate.
While factually correct, this data point distorts reality by ignoring context.
Immigrants in the U.S. as a proportion of the total population, 1850-2016 - In absolute numbers, the U.S. receives more immigrants than any other country. However, looking at those numbers, as a percentage of the whole U.S. population, helps to provide context.
It’s true that in absolute numbers, immigration to the United States is greater than any other country. However, it is small when considering the overall size of the U.S. population. In fact, according to the libertarian CATO Institute, as a percentage of its population, U.S. immigration flows rank relatively low as compared to other major industrialized nations such as Canada and Australia.
Nearly 34 million legal permanent residents live in the United States, two-thirds of whom arrived based on family sponsorship.
Aldana is a graduate of Arizona State University (earning a bachelor’s degree in English and another in Spanish) and Harvard Law School. She was a professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, before joining the McGeorge School of Law faculty in 2009.
Her scholarship has focused on transitional justice, criminal justice reforms, and sustainable development in Latin America, as well as immigrant rights in the United States. She has taught immigration law and international human rights, lawyering for immigrants, “crimmigration,” criminal law and procedure, international labor law, Latin American comparative law, international public law, international human rights, statutes and regulations, and the Central American migration corridor.
She founded and directed the McGeorge School of Law’s Inter-American Program, which trains bilingual and bicultural lawyers for transnational careers or to work with the growing Latino population in the United States. She served as the school’s associate dean for faculty scholarship, 2013-17.
She is co-editing From Extraction to Emancipation: Development Reimagined, a forthcoming book from the American Bar Association. She serves on the Latin American and Caribbean Council of the ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative, and was recently elected to the Council for Racial and Ethic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline. Aldana is a Fellow of the American Bar Association, previously served as the co-president of the Society of American Law Teachers, and was a Fulbright Scholar in Guatemala in 2006 and 2007.
Myth #1: Family immigration is unlimited
On Jan. 5, the Trump administration published its framework on immigration reform and border security. To fulfill its promise to cut lawful immigration by half, the proposal limits family immigration to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This proposed cut would eliminate the ability of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their siblings and adult children. It would also stop U.S. citizens from sponsoring their parents.
To support these cuts, President Trump alleged in his first State of the Union address that current law creates a chain of migration that allows immigrants to sponsor “unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” This claim is untrue.
With few exceptions, all lawful permanent immigration to the United States is subject to annual limits. Moreover, no single nation may send more than 7 percent of the overall total number of immigrants coming to the United States in a given year. Only U.S. citizens can sponsor immediate relatives – their spouses, minor and unmarried children and parents – without these limits. In recent years, immediate relatives have comprised nearly half of all family immigration to the United States.
All family immigration categories except immediate relatives are severely backlogged, and in particular for nations with high levels of immigration to the United States.
In fact, applicants for family immigration from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines face wait times of up to 20 years. According to the U.S. State Department, approximately 3.9 million immigrants are waiting in line for an opportunity to immigrate.
Myth #2: Family immigration is overwhelming
The White House website features a chart on chain migration that presents a series of data points intended to suggest that legal immigrants are overwhelming the nation. For example, the chart states, “Every year the U.S. resettles a population larger than the size of Washington D.C.”
While factually correct, this data point distorts reality by ignoring context.
Immigrants in the U.S. as a proportion of the total population, 1850-2016 - In absolute numbers, the U.S. receives more immigrants than any other country. However, looking at those numbers, as a percentage of the whole U.S. population, helps to provide context.
It’s true that in absolute numbers, immigration to the United States is greater than any other country. However, it is small when considering the overall size of the U.S. population. In fact, according to the libertarian CATO Institute, as a percentage of its population, U.S. immigration flows rank relatively low as compared to other major industrialized nations such as Canada and Australia.
Myth #3: ‘Low-skilled’ immigrants don’t benefit the US
The Trump administration has expressed a preference for highly skilled immigrants. The assumption is that immigration systems that value other factors – such as family unification, diversity or humanitarian goals – allows “low-skilled” immigrants into the U.S. They also assume these immigrants cannot or refuse to assimilate, or may even be dangerous. The profiles of permanent immigration to the United States today, however, reveal a much more positive reality.Nearly 34 million legal permanent residents live in the United States, two-thirds of whom arrived based on family sponsorship.
As a whole, demographic data show that lawful permanent residents work in a range of occupations and professions. They show good levels of social integration. Legal permanent residents and immigrants also generally have lower levels of criminality compared to the population of people born in the U.S.
Most studies on the fiscal impact of U.S. immigration conclude that immigrant contributions have been positive to the overall U.S. economy. They have little to no adverse impact on native workers.
There are, however, variations among immigrants across measures such as educational attainment, home ownership and English proficiency. In general, for example, Asian immigrants outperform immigrants from Latin American and even the native born on some of these measures. But there are historical and geographic reasons that explain why immigrants from Mexico and Central America to the United States have tended to be from poorer and more vulnerable communities.
These variations do not mean that some immigrants integrate poorly or fail to contribute to U.S. society. Rather, their contributions are devalued in this new rhetoric of “merit” migration.
This new standard of “merit” – measured in terms of high levels training and education, English-language proficiency and high wages – creates a hardly achievable race to the top. It narrows the definition of who should be considered a “deserving” immigrant. Nearly all U.S. citizens would likely be undeserving of U.S. immigration under these standards.
Other important values are lost that I believe should continue to define our identity as a nation. These values include family unification, compassion toward people who are persecuted and being good neighbors.
Moreover, values also means valuing the contributions of immigrants who do the difficult work of picking our fruit, cleaning our houses, cutting our lawns and caring for our children and elderly.
Comment posted on this essay: Gerardo M Gonzalez
Dean of Education Emeritus and Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Indiana University
"Thank you for debunking some of these myths on migration. The notion of “merit” migration is one of the most shortsighted policy ideas floating around today. Immigrants, regardless of their country of origin and their station in life, often bring to the U.S. a strong work ethic and commitment to help their children do better through education. Their impact is generational. Our nation’s history is replete with stories of people like me from poor families who came here with nothing and were able to give back many times over to their adopted homeland. Here’s why I feel so strongly about this issue https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daca-dreamers-immigration_us_5a5befc2e4b04f3c55a3d5e2?ezx"
Most studies on the fiscal impact of U.S. immigration conclude that immigrant contributions have been positive to the overall U.S. economy. They have little to no adverse impact on native workers.
There are, however, variations among immigrants across measures such as educational attainment, home ownership and English proficiency. In general, for example, Asian immigrants outperform immigrants from Latin American and even the native born on some of these measures. But there are historical and geographic reasons that explain why immigrants from Mexico and Central America to the United States have tended to be from poorer and more vulnerable communities.
These variations do not mean that some immigrants integrate poorly or fail to contribute to U.S. society. Rather, their contributions are devalued in this new rhetoric of “merit” migration.
This new standard of “merit” – measured in terms of high levels training and education, English-language proficiency and high wages – creates a hardly achievable race to the top. It narrows the definition of who should be considered a “deserving” immigrant. Nearly all U.S. citizens would likely be undeserving of U.S. immigration under these standards.
Other important values are lost that I believe should continue to define our identity as a nation. These values include family unification, compassion toward people who are persecuted and being good neighbors.
Moreover, values also means valuing the contributions of immigrants who do the difficult work of picking our fruit, cleaning our houses, cutting our lawns and caring for our children and elderly.
Comment posted on this essay: Gerardo M Gonzalez
Dean of Education Emeritus and Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Indiana University
"Thank you for debunking some of these myths on migration. The notion of “merit” migration is one of the most shortsighted policy ideas floating around today. Immigrants, regardless of their country of origin and their station in life, often bring to the U.S. a strong work ethic and commitment to help their children do better through education. Their impact is generational. Our nation’s history is replete with stories of people like me from poor families who came here with nothing and were able to give back many times over to their adopted homeland. Here’s why I feel so strongly about this issue https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daca-dreamers-immigration_us_5a5befc2e4b04f3c55a3d5e2?ezx"
*Raquel Aldana is Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Diversity at UC Davis and a Professor of Law at the School of Law. She joined UC Davis in 2017.
Aldana is a graduate of Arizona State University (earning a bachelor’s degree in English and another in Spanish) and Harvard Law School. She was a professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, before joining the McGeorge School of Law faculty in 2009.
Her scholarship has focused on transitional justice, criminal justice reforms, and sustainable development in Latin America, as well as immigrant rights in the United States. She has taught immigration law and international human rights, lawyering for immigrants, “crimmigration,” criminal law and procedure, international labor law, Latin American comparative law, international public law, international human rights, statutes and regulations, and the Central American migration corridor.
She founded and directed the McGeorge School of Law’s Inter-American Program, which trains bilingual and bicultural lawyers for transnational careers or to work with the growing Latino population in the United States. She served as the school’s associate dean for faculty scholarship, 2013-17.
She is co-editing From Extraction to Emancipation: Development Reimagined, a forthcoming book from the American Bar Association. She serves on the Latin American and Caribbean Council of the ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative, and was recently elected to the Council for Racial and Ethic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline. Aldana is a Fellow of the American Bar Association, previously served as the co-president of the Society of American Law Teachers, and was a Fulbright Scholar in Guatemala in 2006 and 2007.
Labels: chain migration, family immigration, Raquel Aldana
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 12:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home