Model Immigrants and Undesirable Aliens: The Cost of Immigration Reform in the 1990s

2. Family Values and Moral Obligations: The Logic of Congressional Rhetoric

73  FamilyValues and Moral Obligations The Logic of Congressional Rhetoric In June , the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform sent its second interim report, “Legal Immigration: Setting Priorities,” to Congress. In her introductory letter, Chair Barbara Jordan wrote that “the Commission recommends a significant redefinition of priorities and a reallocation of existing admission numbers to fulfill more effectively the objectives of our immigration system.” According to this bipartisan commission, the U.S. government had not only admitted too many immigrants; it had also failed to adapt admission criteria to the changing demands of the labor market. While the commission was mindful of America’s historic commitment to family reunification, it was concerned about the negative impact that elderly and unskilled immigrants had had on the U.S. welfare system. Consequently, the commission recommended far-reaching reforms that advocated the use of economic objectives to streamline admission criteria. Over the course of the – immigration reform debate, numerous politicians came back to these initial recommendations. In a direct reference to Barbara Jordan’s work, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) reminded his fellow senators of the significance of immigration reform: “As we consider immigration reform today, we must be mindful of the important role of immigration in our history and our traditions. Immigrants bring to this country a strong love of freedom, respect for democracy, commitment to family and community, fresh energy and ideas, and a strong desire to become a contributing part of this Nation. . . . If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost” (United States Congress, Senate, April , ). Senator Kennedy added that America could only stay true to this heritage if it moderately reduced overall levels of immigration, gave preference to immediate family members and skilled workers, and protected unskilled American laborers from unfair competition. After all, America was not just a country of immigration but 74 · FAMILY VALUES AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS also a country devoted to protecting its own citizens. Accordingly, Senator Kennedy promoted a compromise solution that attempted to do justice to both sides—U.S. citizens as well as potential immigrants. Congressional records indicate that the “America is a nation of immigrants ” trope was not only popular but also flexible. While politicians like Senator Kennedy reasoned that it was in America’s best interest to keep its borders open to attract a select group of promising individuals, others added that the United States also had a moral obligation to maintain its generous immigration policy. Representative Louis Stoke (D-OH), for instance, claimed that restricting the number of legal immigrants “clearly violates the basic tenets of fairness and justice upon which our Nation, a nation of immigrants, was founded [and] that America must honor its pledge of being a nation that will reunite families” (United States Congress , House, March , ). In contrast, proponents of more restrictive immigration laws alleged that even though “we are a Nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made great contributions to our country,” Congress needed to determine “what level of legal immigration is most consistent with our resources and our needs” (Richard C. Shelby [R-AL]; United States Congress, Senate, April , ). According to this logic, the United States could not afford to admit large numbers of immigrants regularly because, as John J. Duncan (R-TN) phrased it, “too much of any good thing can become harmful, even destructive” (United States Congress, House, March , ). The supporters of more restrictive immigration laws argued that immigrants had started to become a burden on U.S. society. Not only did these politicians claim that the immigrant population was too large to benefit the nation; numerous speakers also argued that the preference system had failed to select the “best and the brightest.” Consequently, Congress faced the difficult task of balancing a historical commitment to immigrants against the economic, cultural, and social interests of contemporary American citizens. This extensive debate about the optimal structure of a legal immigration system for the twenty-first century was part of a larger “discursive formation.” In The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language , Michel Foucault argues that “a discursive formation is not . . . an ideal, continuous, smooth text that runs beneath the multiplicity of contradictions . . . . It is rather a space of multiple dissensions; a set of different oppositions whose levels and roles must be described” (Foucault , FAMILY VALUES AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS · 75 ). As such, a discursive formation draws on a wide variety of...