In early September, President Barack Obama decided to delay executive action on immigration policy until the mid-election, contradicting his promise that he would take action by the end of the summer. White House officials recognized that immigration policy is splintering Democrats, and the unilateral move on the issue in light of election season could fundamentally doom the opportunities of more comprehensive reforms next year.
Immigration policy and reform has become one of the toughest issues circulating the White House and Congress in the past two decades. The reason is the United States’ immigration policy has been enormously influenced by its foreign policy, which lacks consistency and is vulnerable to domestic and foreign shocks.
The 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing, 1995 Oklahoma city bombing and September 11 terrorist attacks have not only substantially changed the direction of the country’s foreign policy but also the way the U.S. formulated immigration policy. After the catastrophe on 9/11, the debate on immigration has shifted to a discussion about how to strike a balance between national security and making sure immigrants were still welcome into the country. In practice, the need of absorbing immigrants is in fact overwhelmed by the bureaucracy created after 9/11 to focus on national security. But prior to 9/11 or even the 1990s, changes on immigration policy had put limited concerns on national security.
For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was implemented and later amended in 1965 to outlaw restricting admittance based on race, national origin and ethnicity. The INA serves as a statutory foundation for today’s immigration policy. The immigration policy from the 1960s to 1980s was based on family ties and economic skills.
Yet, neither policy based on economic skills nor national security touches the spirit of immigration that should be connected to the country’s ideals. Policies based on these factors are temporary and less likely to provide a solid foundation for the country to move forward.
Immigrants who are allowed to come to the U.S. with economic skills perhaps see the country as merely a better living standard with little else the nation could offer. If they came from countries where the institutions differ vastly from the U.S., they may stick to their original mindset and hardly assimilate into mainstream society.
In the current immigration system, civic education only begins when applicants want to become U.S. citizens. But it largely dismisses people who potentially become immigrants in the future. For example, the H1B visa for foreigners as non-immigrant workers is a temporary stage connecting foreign status with permanent residency. Non-immigrant visa holders are not offered any civic education, still being treated by the system as a foreign alien despite potentially living in the country for years. Despite paying taxes, these prospective citizens are excluded from being involved in local and community affairs. Such a restricted system is less likely to keep those highly skilled workers in the U.S. and they might switch to other nations if offered higher salaries.
An immigration system without explicit educational goals to help immigrants transition to life in the U.S. cannot be regarded as a complete system. The ultimate goal of immigration policy is—or at least should be—to bring people together who agree with the core values of the U.S. and who are willing to integrate into the mainstream society, contributing efforts and ideas to build a better community. The hope of creating a better system still relies on congressmen considering that immigration encompasses more than economics and national security.
Send your thoughts to Ziyi at technician-viewpoint@ncsu.edu.
