I'm not sure it was as obvious as all that. Hindsight is 20/20. Moreover, I don't think people in 1965 really imagined that so many people would be willing or able to move across oceans. Travel got much cheaper and (as a result) much more commonplace than it was then. Immigration from Mexico was one thing because Mexicans could simply walk across the border. Immigrants from Asia had a much harder and more expensive time of it.
What I'm given to understand is that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was thought of as bringing immigration law into line with the color-blind philosophy in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The thinking, as I understand it, was that it was as unjust to discriminate by race in immigration as it was in any other part of the law.
I do think politicians should have gone to the public and made the argument nonetheless. I think they probably could have sold it to the public at the time, given the political climate at the time. I think the same people who were against the Civil Rights Act would have been against the Immigration and Nationality Act, but I also think the rest of the country would have been as supportive of it as they were the Civil Rights Act.
What I'm given to understand is that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was thought of as bringing immigration law into line with the color-blind philosophy in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Though no doubt there were other pressures involved. As you guessed, Wikipedia says "Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic." OTOH, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted in favor.
Looking at the article, I see "The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions." which seems low given that there are over 1,000,000 naturalizations. But perhaps family reunification has been far more dominant that I knew or Congress expected. I know an immigration lawyer; I should ask if he know anything about that.
But perhaps family reunification has been far more dominant that I knew or Congress expected. I know an immigration lawyer; I should ask if he know anything about that.
Yes, I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. My understanding is that there has been quite a lot of immigration via family reunification:
Family reunification in the United States is the most common legal basis for immigration to the United States, and it is governed by the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
Lawyers tend to be detail-oriented, and he's particularly so, but as far as I could get him to focus on the general pattern, the fact that the closest relatives of citizens are admitted without any quota at all drives the numbers. The category of spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of U.S. citizen adults is unlimited. The remainder of immigrant visas for other categories seems to be between 1/4 and 1/2 million per year. Since the number of naturalizations runs over 1 million per year, the majority of immigration is "chain immigration".
So it looks like essentially unlimited chain immigration, combined with cheapening travel and the motivations of distance and economic disparity, determine the overall pattern.
This reminds me of an article in the Globe a few days ago. Some fellow from Gambia (IIRC) drowned when a boat capsized crossing the Mediterranean. So his brother back in Gambia immediately started preparing to make the trip. It seems that it's understood in Gambia that every family needs one young man to get to Europe, presumably to send money back home. The Globe blamed it all on "desperation", but really the driver is high disparity in income between countries -- and the absence of a government in Libya that can be bribed to stop Africans from getting on boats.
Since the number of naturalizations runs over 1 million per year, the majority of immigration is "chain immigration".
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured.
really the driver is high disparity in income between countries
It's been said that the best way to reduce emigration from a given place is to make it rich, and the best way to reduce immigration into a place is to make it poor.
Perhaps this was the secret plan behind the Leave campaign. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-05-29 05:54 am (UTC)What I'm given to understand is that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was thought of as bringing immigration law into line with the color-blind philosophy in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The thinking, as I understand it, was that it was as unjust to discriminate by race in immigration as it was in any other part of the law.
I do think politicians should have gone to the public and made the argument nonetheless. I think they probably could have sold it to the public at the time, given the political climate at the time. I think the same people who were against the Civil Rights Act would have been against the Immigration and Nationality Act, but I also think the rest of the country would have been as supportive of it as they were the Civil Rights Act.
We'll never know.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-06-01 10:58 pm (UTC)Though no doubt there were other pressures involved. As you guessed, Wikipedia says "Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic." OTOH, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted in favor.
Looking at the article, I see "The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions." which seems low given that there are over 1,000,000 naturalizations. But perhaps family reunification has been far more dominant that I knew or Congress expected. I know an immigration lawyer; I should ask if he know anything about that.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-06-01 11:53 pm (UTC)Yes, I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. My understanding is that there has been quite a lot of immigration via family reunification:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_reunification_in_the_United_States)
(no subject)
Date: 2016-06-23 02:35 am (UTC)So it looks like essentially unlimited chain immigration, combined with cheapening travel and the motivations of distance and economic disparity, determine the overall pattern.
This reminds me of an article in the Globe a few days ago. Some fellow from Gambia (IIRC) drowned when a boat capsized crossing the Mediterranean. So his brother back in Gambia immediately started preparing to make the trip. It seems that it's understood in Gambia that every family needs one young man to get to Europe, presumably to send money back home. The Globe blamed it all on "desperation", but really the driver is high disparity in income between countries -- and the absence of a government in Libya that can be bribed to stop Africans from getting on boats.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-07-02 12:46 am (UTC)Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured.
really the driver is high disparity in income between countries
It's been said that the best way to reduce emigration from a given place is to make it rich, and the best way to reduce immigration into a place is to make it poor.
Perhaps this was the secret plan behind the Leave campaign. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2016-07-02 02:13 am (UTC)Snurk!