We disagree a lot in this country. A spirited, passionate, boisterous debate is the underpinning of our political system. One fact most of us won't disagree about, however, is that America was built by immigrants. That conviction has been part of our DNA from the very beginning. Tedious legal arguments aside, unless you are a Native American, your ancestors came into this country as immigrants. From 1776 to 2006 we took in an estimated 72 million legal immigrants, about 13% of all who ever lived here. By 2006 12 million lawful permanent immigrant residents inhabited our country. Another 12 million had already become naturalized citizens. (The Globalist, Nov. 29, 2006). On a typical day we process 110,000 foreigners coming into the country, 3,100 receive migrant visas, while 1,500 enter illegally - and there is the rub. Unauthorized migration has been our main policy concern, although the vetting of migrants from target countries for potential terrorist ties has recently also become a significant security focus.
From colonial times onward immigrants arrived in waves. Our first settlers came during the early 1600s in search of religious freedom. Persecuted groups like the Pilgrims established a colony in Plymouth, and between 1630 and 1640 some 20,000 Puritans settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As early as 1619 20 immigrants from West Africa, who arrived against their will, were forced into indentured servitude as slaves. Their number sadly ballooned to 700,000 by 1790.
During the period from 1776 to 1819 we accepted around 6,500 immigrants each year. From 1820 to 1879 - during the "continental expansion" period, this number grew to an annual average of 162,000. And from 1880 to 1924, during the Industrial Revolution, these numbers increased again, to 584,000 per year, while dropping to approximately 178,00 after 1925. (Compiled by Vernon Briggs, Cornell University).
Throughout our brief history anti-immigrant sentiment, mostly prompted by fear and/or ignorance, surfaced periodically. The concerns expressed usually included perceived affects on our economy, negative environmental impacts from accelerated population growth, increased crime rates, and changes to traditional identities and values. (Marisa Abrajano, "White Backlash: Immigration, Race and American Politics," Princeton University Press, 2015). More specifically, these arguments have been, and still are, articulated in terms of "national identity," the fear of losing the identity of the native population by an infusion of destructive traditions, culture, language and politics; "isolation," the fear that immigrants may isolate into their own communities, leading to the development of ghettos or parallel societies, rather than assimilating into the native culture; and an increase in competition for scarce resources, like social welfare systems, housing, education, etc. Over the years, opposition to immigration, for whatever reason, led politicians to make policy adjustments to existing laws.
President John Adams signed the Naturalization Act in 1798, which increased the period of residency required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship to 14 years. The Alien Friend Act and the Alien Enemies Act accompanying this legislation gave the president the power to deport any foreigner if he considered such person dangerous to the country. During the mid 19th century anti-immigration fervor turned decidedly anti-Catholic, culminating into the "Know-Nothing" Party. The Roman Catholic church had become the single largest denomination in the U.S., primarily on the strength of immigration from Ireland and Germany. The first significant law restricting immigration into the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, passed by Congress and signed by President Chester Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration. Chinese laborers had entered the country during the 1850s, first working in gold mines, and subsequently in agricultural enterprises and factories. They were particularly instrumental in building railroads in the American west. As they became more successful, resentment by other workers increased, which eventually prompted Congress to act. A 1917 law required immigrants over 16 years old to pass a literacy test. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system, favoring immigrants from Western Europe, and prohibiting migrants from Asia. The Immigration Act of 1965 did away with quotas, and allowed sponsoring relatives. Current immigration patterns favor Latin America and Asia.
A plaque installed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty bears the text of a poem written by Emma Lazarus, which reads in part: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses yearning to be free." These words have long been favored sentimentally by many interested in immigration and immigration policy. However, they probably had limited applicability, even when written in 1883. Immigration has always served an economic purpose. Whether we are talking about colonial development, indentured servitude, Chinese railroad workers, factory workers, or agricultural laborers harvesting our crops, legally or not, we, as a country, would not have had the economic success we are so eager to flaunt without this labor pool. If immigration had ceased with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our population would now probably only be somewhere around 125 million. Immigration fuels the economy. Immigrants increase our productive capacity and raise GDP. "Immigration surplus" has been estimated to amount to $36 to $72 billion per year. (Pia Orrenius, "Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs," George W. Bush Institute, 2016). The current debate about eliminating the DACA program, the proposed construction of a demonstrably ineffective wall on our Southern border, or scaling back the H-1B Visa program, limiting employment of highly skilled foreign workers, could have a damaging effect on our economy. Deporting the 800,000 plus "dreamers" enrolled in the DACA program alone could cost our economy more than $400 billion. (John Schoen, CNBC, Sept. 5, 2017).
Throughout our history anti-immigrant sentiment, articulated and marshaled by populist politicians exploiting fear and ignorance, have run counter to rational economic policies. As always, simplicity sells, complexity breeds vulnerability. We should compel Congress to apply basic economic principles when developing policies that affect us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment