-
Chapter 5: “Our Nation’s Efforts to Protect Families Has Fallen Far Short”: Pluralist Ideals and Vulnerable Families
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 5 “Our Nation’s Efforts to Protect Families Has Fallen Far Short”: Pluralist Ideals and Vulnerable Families In a letter dated June 11, 1984, and addressed to Rep. Peter Rodino (DNJ ), chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality, regarding a bill proposing to alter family reunification provisions, Hyman Bookbinder of the American Jewish Committee reminded the congressman : “America’s commitment to fair and humane entry preferences for relatives [has] historically expressed our highest values and [has] brought to the U.S. newcomers who have enriched our social, economic, and cultural life.”1 It was an unnecessary reminder. One lawmaker after another during the debates related to addressing unauthorized immigration— which eventually led to passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986—spoke in favor of preserving family reunification, regardless of their position on the proposed legislation to extend amnesty to the estimated two million undocumented immigrants in the country.2 For example, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) argued, “Family immigration must continue to be the mainstay of this country’s immigrant flow—our culture , our economy, and our national character have been shaped by the diverse and vital communities who make up the fabric of this country.”3 In addition, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s claim that the “country’s historic commitment to family reunion” was “the principal goal of our immigration policy” was not surprising given his long-standing support for family unity provisions.4 Even congressional leaders who supported tighter controls on immigration , particularly undocumented flows, and opposed an amnesty program prefaced their position with a statement of support for family reunification . On the House floor, Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY) questioned the impact of an amnesty program, especially “the phenomenon of chain migration ” and its strain on the social and economic system, while still articulating support for family reunification.5 He argued: Once we make millions of illegal aliens legal residents, they will be eligible to bring in spouses and unmarried sons and daughters under the preference FICTIVE KINSHIP 100 system. Family reunification is a longstanding goal in this country and one I continue to support. But if we are suddenly going to have several million people given legal resident status, we must take some time to look at what the impact of that amnesty will be. How will it affect our ability to provide social services, health care, housing, and above all, jobs to both our citizens and the newly legalized aliens? Can we absorb virtually unlimited legal immigration on top of unhampered illegal immigration? No.6 In addition to illustrating the official commitment to family reunification that most immigration scholars and the lay public associate with contemporary immigration, Representative Scheuer’s statement demonstrates three additional points that have come to dominate discourse surrounding immigration in the era after the 1965 reform. First, lawmakers like Representative Scheuer have been alarmed by the increase in immigration generated through family sponsorship and reunification. Second, concern over unauthorized immigration, which has increasingly been conflated with legal immigration, has grown. Until 1965, the central immigration debate was about whether national origins policy should be continued, but after the Hart-Celler Act the attention of both lawmakers and the public shifted toward undocumented immigration. Third, Scheuer’s comments reflect unease regarding immigrants’ use of social welfare provisions. Anger over supposed misuse of welfare support helped Congress and the White House to undertake the massive legislative effort of reforming welfare. In 1996, Congress enacted the landmark Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The meaning of family , legal status, and welfare support all came to a head in the decades after the 1965 Hart-CellerAct ended national origins policy and firmly cemented family reunification in American immigration policy. Politicians and scholars who have heralded the 1965 reform as a liberal political achievement—part of the civil rights reforms of the 1960s—and a continuing symbol of a pluralist national ideal can surely find abundant evidence to support this claim in the patterns of entry and settlement of the diverse immigrant families who dominate American immigration.7 The end to national origins policy facilitated the immigration of previously excluded groups. In addition, family unity provisions now account for nearly two-thirds of all authorized immigration.8 Officially, these developments are celebrated, and immigration stakeholders—from conservative politicians to liberal immigrant activist groups—nearly unanimously support the continued centrality of family unity in American immigration policy. This has...