As an immigrant, I stand in defense of immigration and
its immense contribution to the advancement and prosperity of our nation.
However, I find many statements by proponents and opponents
of immigration to be faulty or inaccurate.
We do not need exaggerations, lies, and half-truths to defend what
really stands tall on its own.
A
Historical Footnote
Large immigration to the U.S. started around 1850.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, mass production required millions
of unskilled and semi-skilled men and women to staff newly built factories.
Millions of laborers were needed to build the emerging
infrastructure: railroads, highways, roads, sewage systems, bridges, homes,
universities, and skyscrapers. They came in droves primarily from Europe, some
from China, and others from Mexico. There were plenty jobs to go around.
In the post WWI era, assimilation was encouraged.
Immigrants were told to become Americans, often setting aside their national
customs, culture, and language.
Through the early 1920’s immigrants needed a sponsor in
order to receive a visa to come over. Most, if not all, immigrants came over
legally. Later in that decade, the immigration rules began to change. Some
immigrants were deemed to be more desirable than others. Stricter rules of
immigration were enacted. Quotas were set aside for specific geographic areas of origin.
Some suggest that it was a prelude to the Great Depression.
Soon after WWII the system began to morph again. Preference
in the chain migration was granted to parents, spouses, and children. Brothers and sisters were eligible to compete within
the annual quotas. The quota for Southern Europe was 30,000 per year. Northern
European immigrants were not subject to the quota system and were given
preference, e.g., more desirable.
Sponsors had to vouch to the U.S. government that
newly arrivals would not be a burden financially on the state. Immigrants were
not eligible for welfare, disability, healthcare, and other governmental
assistance programs. This policy continued until the system was liberalized
later on in the century.
Fast
Forward
Things have changed dramatically during the past 50
years.
The need for semi skilled and unskilled jobs began to
decline. Many natives found these low level jobs undesirable. Soon the
country began to morph from a pair of hands labor market to a knowledge society.
Scarcity of highly educated applicants forced the government to come up with a
fast track visa, the HB1.
Globalization contributed to the disappearance of many
skilled and semiskilled jobs as companies begin to exploit low cost labor in
developing countries. Something unheard
from during the boom years, we saw the emergence of an underclass of workers,
the great majority over 40 who found themselves out of work or forced to accept
jobs that paid a fraction of the union wages they enjoyed in the past.
Many poor folks from developing countries were ready,
willing, and able to come over to fill the low level jobs natives
shunted. They could earn in a month more than they were able to earn in a year
in their home country. Millions came illegally. They soon made their presence
felt mostly in the agriculture, home building, home care, and restaurant
industries.
Chain migration was expanded to include brothers,
sisters, grandparents, and in-laws. A special lottery was set aside to give
preference to immigrants from poorly represented nations. Amnesty was granted
to millions of illegal immigrants, thus fueling more illegal immigration.
Special protective set asides permitted folks escaping calamities to settle in
America.
Comparing
the Before and After
As with any wide pendulum swing, many feel that the
pendulum has swung too much toward liberalization. These folks want to see a
shorter migration chain limited to children and spouses (the nuclear family),
and the elimination or reduction of the lottery system. They also oppose what
they consider amnesty. These folks want a more secure border to keep illegal
migration from the Southern border under control.
Proponents, on the other hand, say that shortening the
chain is tantamount to breaking up families … something that was the norm
during the prior immigration years. They
lament the potential elimination or reduction of the lottery as an attack on
people of color since most applicants come from the African continent. Folks believe that building a wall on the
Southern border is a racist tactic.
My Take
There is plenty room between these two opposing views
to reach a compromise. One can understand the notion that including parents in
the chain migration would reward the parents of the Dreamers for having
violated the laws of the country. So grandfathering out the parents of the
Dreamers seems like the right thing to do. A path to citizenship for the
Dreamers needs to be in place. Understandingly a waiting period is in order –
10-12 years seems reasonable. Legal immigrants have to wait a minimum of 5
years before they can petition for naturalization.
So lets get this done …
