Higher Walls? U.S. Interests and Immigration Policy

<< Previous Panel | Next Panel >>

Panelists:

Debra Anker
Professor, Harvard Law School; Director, Immigration Unit, Cambridge-Somerville Legal Services

Scott Busby
Director in the Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, National Security Council; Former Assistant General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Former Associate Legal Counselor, UNHCR, Washington, D.C.

Rodolfo Casillas
Professor, Faculty of Social Science, Latin American University, Mexico City

John Isbister
Author, The Immigration Debate: Remaking America; Provost, Merrill College, University of California, Santa Cruz

Daniel Kanstroom
Professor, Boston College Law School; Director, Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project

Saskia Sassen
Professor of Urban Planning, Department of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Author, The Mobility of Labor and Capital and Globalization and Its Discontents

Aristide Zolberg
University-in-Exile Professor, The Graduate Faculty, The New School for Social Research; Director, International Center for Migration, Ethnicity, and Citizenship

Moderator:
Allison Cohen
EPIIC Colloquium

Interlocutor:
Reed Ueda
Associate Professor of History, Tufts University; Author, Postwar Immigrant America: A Social History

The United States is a country founded on immigration. More than 45 million people have sought to begin new lives within its borders since the beginning of the seventeenth century. Since that time as well, U.S. refugee and immigration policies have been linked to both domestic politics and foreign policy.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were enacted in part to deny asylum to European supporters of democracy. The Immigration Act of 1924, the first permanent limitation on immigration, established the "national origins quota system" -- setting annual immigration quotas at two percent of the number of persons of a given nationality residing in the United States. The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 was used to help settle Cubans in the U.S. after the failed Bay of Pigs attempt to oust Fidel Castro. In 1965, the national origins system was repealed in The Immigration and Nationality Act.

What much of the legislation also shows is the constant struggle in the U.S. to determine who should be admitted and what type of criteria should be considered, with one side enacting a law that is later repealed or amended. Arguments in support of immigration as well as those in favor of its restriction have surfaced and resurfaced often throughout American history. It is not an issue which fits neatly across party lines: liberals and conservatives are just as likely to share similar views on immigration as they are to disagree vehemently. The debate over American immigration is further complicated by its numerous, and often conflicting, social, cultural, economic, and now environmental components.

Social and cultural issues are often integral to the immigration debate. Clashing conceptions of America's national identity -- of who is an American -- leads to conflicting beliefs about who belongs in this country and who does not. Opponents of immigration fear that the diversity that immigrants bring to the United States threatens to unravel the fabric which weaves this nation together. They believe that heterogenization will destroy any defining national ideal by restructuring the United States into a microcosm of the entire world. Along with multi-culturalism, they explain, civic engagement will diminish to the point where citizens are isolated and disconnected. Those who support immigration, however, conceptualize the character of the United States in a very different manner. Proponents of immigration envision the United States as a country of immigrants which has, since its inception, been based on a pluralism of ideas, cultures, languages, and ethnicities. They argue that America is characterized by the unique role that immigrants have played in the population's history. Built on diversity, immigrant supporters explain, America's multifaceted society is tied together by a common allegiance to democracy and freedom.

The economic consequences of immigration also play a fundamental role in the debate. Opponents of immigration argue that immigrants hurt the American economy because they are an economic burden on taxpayers -- draining society's resources, increasing unemployment, reducing wages, and threatening to weaken America's international competitiveness. Those who support immigration disagree. They argue that immigrants do not cost American taxpayers any more than what the immigrants pay in taxes, that immigrants create jobs, and that immigrants bring with them energy and talent which only serve to strengthen America's international competitiveness. Various reports commissioned over the years have supported both of these views, depending on the statistics and how the data is reviewed.

The environmental consequences of immigration is a relatively new sub-debate within the larger discussion about immigration. According to the United States Census Bureau, immigrants will be responsible for two-thirds of the net population growth in the United States by the year 2050. As such a dramatic proportion of population growth in this country, some environmentalists argue, immigrants put an excessive strain on an already fragile environment.

Sorting out the debate over U.S. interests and immigration policy is not a simple task. One of the more recent innovations is the introduction of an annual lottery for the green card. Depending on one's interpretation of the many components of the larger discussion, restrictionists as well as expansionists find themselves with unlikely allies and foes on this issue. Debating immigration policy forces Americans to ask themselves a very fundamental question: how do we want to shape the future identity of the United States?