Memo 2 - GradeMINERS

Based on the introduction to Bardach, the case study, and discussion, in a second 1 to 2 page policy memo (acting as a policy analyst) provide a brief but detailed overview of the immigration policy environment and critiques of the 2013 U.S. Immigration reform proposal. Highlight the key points and whether there were alternative policy approaches that could have been taken to reform immigration at the time. (Remember no “I” statements). Why or why not?
For the memo remember to address the main points and provide all necessary and relevant information. You should be clear and concise and provide enough information that your reader (who might not know all the details) clearly understands what you are trying to convey.
Discussion
Each person will choose a different public problem applicable to a local area near you. State the public problem. Define the problem. What other ways could you define the problem? Be sure to avoid potential pitfalls such as including a possible policy/solution into the definition of the problem? Speculate what are some policy alternatives that could help alleviate the problem? What do think would be the most plausible policy alternative for your area? (HINT: Problem definition is most important here)

Reforming.pdf

9-721-022
R E V : A U G U S T 1 7 , 2 0 2 1

Professor Marco Tabellini prepared this case with the assistance of Silvia Farina. This case was developed from published sources. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2021 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
M A R C O T A B E L L I N I
Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
In June 2013, a comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration regime seemed finally on its way, after a decades-long impasse that had left the regulatory framework practically unchanged since 1990. On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act with a comfortable 68-to-32 majority.1 The bill was drafted by the “Gang of Eight,” a bipartisan group of four Democratic and four Republican Senators. “The bill . . . would be the most substantial change in immigration law since the 1986 reform,” wrote the Los Angeles Times.2 According to the New York Times, it would “fix chronic problems in the system” by both legalizing the status of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. and reorienting future immigration towards a more merit or skill-based point system.3
“The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” exulted Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—the leader of the Gang of Eight. “I consider this an astounding success,” echoed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another member of the bipartisan group.4 There was also optimism about the bill because it included a series of balances to appease the two parties and to reconcile the conflicting positions of employers and labor unions (see Exhibit 1). First, a clear path to the legalization of the status of undocumented immigrants (a key aspect for Democrats) was balanced by corresponding efforts to increase border security (the top priority for Republicans). Second, both to protect American unskilled workers and to encourage high-skilled immigration (especially in the STEM sector, as demanded by firms), the bill increased the weight given to personal skills. At the same time, the focus on “family-based” immigration, which had long characterized the U.S. system, was at least partly left in place.
The accomplishment by the Gang of Eight was praised by both Republicans and Democrats as well as by external actors. “The heart of immigration reform is fixing the legal immigration system so it works for America,” claimed the President of ImmigrationWorks, Tamar Jacoby. 5,6 The organization of young, undocumented immigrants, United We Dream, expressed its support for the legislation, noting that it represented a “major victory for the movement.” 7 Many also expressed their hopes because the bipartisan agreement was reached at a time of hyperpolarization in American politics.8 The bill might have marked the beginning of a new era, characterized by cooperation—rather than opposition—between parties. Agreeing over a common path, especially on a controversial issue like immigration, was not only of practical, but also symbolic, importance.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
2
However, the bill needed to go to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration. Despite the widespread optimism about the future of the bill, the Gang of Eight received fierce critiques from multiple fronts. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) lamented that the goals of those who crafted the bill were “not coterminous with, they’re not in harmony with, the nation as a whole.”9 Some worried about the impact that the bill would have had on wages and employment of native workers, namely those born in the United States, in particular the more vulnerable ones at the bottom of the income distribution. “Everything in this bill is about bringing in more people to compete for American jobs,” commented Roy Beck, an opponent of unrestricted immigration.10
Others feared that the bill would have opened the doors to undocumented immigration. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) warned that the proposed law would legalize “almost everyone in the country illegally before the border is secured.” “This of course will encourage even more illegal immigration,” he concluded.11 House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) belittled the enthusiasm among the Gang of Eight and its supporters and repeatedly declared that the House had “no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.”12 After Senate approval of the bill and cognizant of the atmosphere prevailing in the House, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) noted that the Gang of Eight would “stand ready to sit down and negotiate with you.”13 Yet, the margin for a discussion and a compromise was slim. “Apparently some haven’t gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,”14 reiterated John Boehner.
One year later, on June 27, 2014, the situation had not improved. In fact, amid stark gridlock, the bill approved in the Senate had never been considered for a discussion in the House. The mood among the Gang of Eight and supporters of immigration reform was very different than just a few months before. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the most fervent supporters of the bill, expressed his discontent: “It’s one of the most frustrating moments that I’ve had . . . [it] is incredibly disappointing not only to me personally but to millions of people across the country.”15 It was clear by then that immigration reform had failed.
“It’s so bizarre when you have the business community, organized labor, the faith community, law enforcement, you name it, everybody’s for it. Come on—how can you have something everybody’s for and not get it passed?” asked Representative John Yarmuth (D-KY), one of the members of the Gang of Eight.16 These puzzles were not new to policymakers, in the U.S. or elsewhere. Indeed, the question of immigration was one of the world’s most divisive political issues in the early twenty-first century. But why was immigration so vexing, what were the stakes for individual countries, and what might it entail for the future of globalization as such?
Immigration in American History
The Age of Mass Migration
As John F. Kennedy noted, the U.S. is “a nation of immigrants.”17 Since 1850, more than 80 million immigrants moved to America, and, as of 2018, 13.7% of its population was foreign-born (see Exhibit 2). Until the mid-nineteenth century, because of the high cost of crossing the Atlantic, immigration to the U.S. remained very low. However, since the 1850s, a series of factors—including changes in shipping technology, growing reliance on migrant networks, and rising incomes—triggered an unprecedented increase in emigration from Europe.18 Between 1850 and 1920, during what historians refer to as the Age of Mass Migration, more than 50 million migrants left Europe, with 30 million of them settling in the U.S.19,20
At the time, no barrier existed to immigration to the U.S. from Europe.21,22 The yearly number of immigrants rose from less than one per 1,000 residents in 1820 to an average of 15 per 1,000 residents
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
3
between 1850 and 1920 (see Exhibit 3). During this period, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population increased from less than 10% to 14%, and one in five individuals in the U.S. labor force was foreign- born—a number seven percentage points higher than in 2018, when 13% of the individuals in the labor force were immigrants. The composition of European immigrants changed substantially over the period. In 1850, more than 90% of immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe—particularly from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. However, after 1890, the share of Southern and Eastern European immigrants started to rise, and by 1920, the stock of migrants from these regions was as high as 40% (see Exhibit 4).
The “new” immigrants—as the Italians, the Poles, and the Russians were typically referred to— were younger, less educated, more likely to be male, and less likely to settle permanently in the U.S.23 Also, they were culturally “more distant” from the original Anglo-Saxon settlers. For these reasons, they were often viewed with great skepticism. In 1896, the first President of the American Economic Association and third President of MIT, Francis A. Walker, stated that the U.S. had to “[protect] the American Standard of living, and the quality of American citizenship from degradation through the tumultuous access of vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry from the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe.”24 Stanford Professor (and future Dean) Ellwood P. Cubberley expressed a similar view in 1909, describing Southern and Eastern European immigrants as “illiterate, docile, and lacking in self-reliance and initiative.” Cubberley also worried that immigration would “dilute tremendously our national stock, and corrupt our civic life.”25
The Immigration Acts of the 1920s
In 1907, amid growing concerns about immigration, U.S. Congress established the Dillingham Commission to evaluate the impact of immigrants on American society and the economy. In 1911, after four years of investigations, the commission advocated for several measures to limit the inflow of immigrants, especially from “new” sending countries. Following the advice of the Dillingham Commission, in 1917, Congress introduced a literacy test that required all immigrants to be able to read and write. The literacy test was the precursor of much more far-reaching legislation. In 1921 and 1924, Congress approved a set of stringent country-specific quotas that drastically reduced the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. in any given year.26 This was an unprecedented move, which caused the number of annual immigrants to plummet from over one million in 1910 to a mere 150,000 in 1924.
The 1924 National Origins Acts introduced quotas designed to exclude immigrants from “undesirable countries” from Eastern and Southern Europe.27 Entry slots were specific to each country of origin and were set to 2% of the foreign-born stock from each national group residing in the U.S. as of 1890.28 Because very few immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were living in the U.S. in 1890, the quotas disproportionately affected immigration from these regions. On the other hand, immigration from “old” sending countries (e.g., Germany, Norway, and Sweden) was much less restricted.
The Immigration Acts of the 1920s had a long-lasting impact. From its record high of 14% in 1920, the immigrant share of the U.S. population declined to just 5% in 1970. Between 1924 and 1965, only a few exceptions interrupted a period of very limited immigration.29 Among these, the most notable ones included the Jewish and the Eastern European refugees during World War II and in 1953, respectively, and the Bracero program that allowed four million Mexican agricultural laborers to work temporarily in some southern states.30
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
4
From Country-Specific Quotas to Family Reunification
For a comprehensive change in its immigration policy, America had to wait until 1965, when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bill eliminated the country-specific quotas, increased the annual immigration cap to 270,000, and introduced a system of preferences for individuals with specific skills and who were sponsored by their employers.31 The single most important provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act was to give precedence to immigration for “family reunification” motives. This implied that “employment-based” migration remained significantly less important than “family-based” migration.32
The effects of the 1965 Immigration Act were dramatic. The share of the U.S. population born abroad increased to almost 14% by 2010—a level not seen since 1920 (see Exhibit 2).33 Furthermore, the immigrant population of the U.S. grew increasingly diverse: until 1970, more than 80% of the foreign- born stock originated from either Europe or Oceania and Canada; but this number fell to less than 20% in the following 40 years (see Exhibit 4). As of 2010, more than 50% of foreign-born individuals living in the U.S. came from Central and South America, and another 30% from Asia.
Despite its ultimate results, the original intent of the 1965 Act was not to increase the diversity of the U.S. population. In fact, it was precisely the opposite. Democratic legislator and Harvard Law School graduate Michael Feighan—one of the architects of the Immigration and Nationality Act—was convinced that, by eliminating the quota system, the (white) racial makeup of the U.S. would have remained intact. This would have been possible, according to Feighan, “if the country prioritized entry for people with family already in the United States . . . Since most Americans [in 1965] were white, their family members abroad would also be white.”34 Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the floor manager of the bill, expressed a similar view, stating that the Immigration and Nationality Act “will not upset the ethnicity mix of our society.”35 Along similar lines, upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared that even though the Act “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American nation . . . [it] is not a revolutionary bill.”36
The Immigration and Nationality Act was amended and modified several times since 1965—most importantly with the 1990 Immigration Act, which increased the quota cap to 675,000 entries per year, revised and expanded the “employer based” visa categories, and altered several aspects of the exclusion and deportation procedures.37 However, its key elements remained unchanged, and the 1965 Act still governed the main aspects of American immigration policy when the Gang of Eight introduced its immigration bill in 2013.
Cracks in the System
An Outmoded Immigration Framework
Proponents of a comprehensive reform highlighted the need to renew the framework regulating immigration of foreign-born workers and students, which, using the words of Harvard Professor William Kerr, were “a global gift” for the U.S.38,39 Indeed, almost 20% of the American workforce with at least a college degree during the 2010s was born abroad—up from just 7% in 1980.40 Similarly, about one in three STEM workers and more than half of doctorate degree holders, respectively, were born abroad.41,42 Yet, with growing global competition for talent, an outmoded immigration framework was putting at risk the tremendous advantage that the U.S. economy had historically enjoyed.
Aware of these challenges, several U.S. firms complained that the prevailing system was hindering their “ability to recruit foreign workers.” This was true especially in the most dynamic sectors of the economy, such as the high-tech industry, where demand for high skilled immigrants vastly exceeded
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
5
supply. According to a survey conducted by Harvard Business School, respondents (including business leaders) were in favor of increasing employment-based immigration by more than 300% relative to the current level, reducing the precedence given to family-based migration.43 Shifting away from family-based migration would have increased the weight given to skills and education of prospective immigrants in the selection process.
Many economists also stressed the inefficiency of the existing system, which capped the number of high skilled immigrant visas (the H1-B) at a mere 85,000 per year.44, 45 Since firms’ demand regularly exceeded the number of available permits, the U.S. government randomized them among potential applicants. “That is a very crude way of selecting,” noted William Kerr. “If you are Microsoft, you’re usually putting several thousand applications in so… to get about a third of your applications approved, but you don’t even get to pick which third of your candidates you most want to employ,” continued professor Kerr.46
Inefficiencies in the legal immigration framework were not confined to the H1-B visa system. In fact, even though one fourth of U.S. entrepreneurs were first generation immigrants, and 40% of founders of Fortune 500 companies were either first or second generation immigrants, no visa for entrepreneurs existed.47 This legal void represented an obstacle for talented individuals who wanted to move to the United States, and, indirectly, imposed severe costs to American born workers. Indeed, researchers “estimated the lower-bound of the job creation impacts of a start-up visa at nearly 500,000 new jobs over ten years.”48
Finally, the visa system was based on the premise that workers would have lived in the United States temporarily. In order to qualify for most visas, an immigrant had to show that he had “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”49 Such temporary arrangement meant that firms were unable to make long-term plans, and may have been reluctant to invest in their workers’ human capital and skills, cognizant that such investment might have not paid off, had workers not been granted permanent residency. Moreover, workers lived under significant uncertainty, with both economic and psychological negative consequences. High skilled, talented individuals might have found a job in another country. Yet, this may have been harder, or even impossible, for unskilled workers, who were forced to return to their home country once their visa expired, unless they decided to stay in the U.S. without legal documents.
Undocumented Immigration: Problems and (Failed) Solutions
While many demanded reforms to increase the efficiency of the American immigration system, the most salient issue since the early 1990s had become that of undocumented immigration. This was a major unintended consequence of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because the bill had introduced numeric caps to immigrants from each country, including (for the first time) those in the Western Hemisphere.50 In 1964, U.S. Congress also terminated the Bracero program, which had been used by U.S. employers since 1942 to recruit temporary agricultural workers from Mexico. The termination of the Bracero program, coupled with the introduction of limits to legal immigration from Mexico, gave rise to undocumented immigration, as many Bracero workers kept crossing the border to perform the same jobs they had been doing until 1964.51
The number of undocumented immigrants increased steadily until the mid-2000s when, according to the best available estimates, about 650,000 undocumented immigrants were entering the U.S. each year.52,53 Pew Research Center statistics indicated that the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. reached a record 12.2 million right before the Great Recession of 2007–2009 (see Exhibit 5).54,55
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F8%2F1101&data=04%7C01%7Cmtabellini%40hbs.edu%7Cb7571f0e666b4e56d84308d8f8ebef7f%7C09fd564ebf4243218f2db8e482f8635c%7C0%7C0%7C637533039502964359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=KRf9NxwpXQK8l0hC2ZuRXw00lwzi6XPVDinMblAGcow%3D&reserved=0

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
6
Since the 1980s, policymakers had tried to respond to the issues posed by unauthorized immigration. On the one hand, resources devoted to policing and border control increased more than ten times between 1980 and 2000.56 Moreover, the U.S. government increased penalties for employers hiring undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, multiple attempts were made to legalize the status of individuals who permanently resided but who entered the U.S. without authorization. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 took a first, important step in this direction, legalizing the status of most unauthorized immigrants who had entered the U.S. before 1982.
IRCA, signed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, built and expanded on the provisions included in the legislative process initiated almost 10 years before under the presidency of Jimmy Carter in 1977.57 The bill was based on three key components, also referred to as the “three legs of the stool” by its sponsors: increasing border security, cracking down on employers hiring unauthorized immigrants, and legalizing the status of foreign-born individuals who had entered the country illegally (see Exhibit 6). The effects of IRCA were dramatic: under the new law, almost 2.7 million undocumented immigrants obtained legal status. Newly legalized immigrants were also able to sponsor their relatives, thereby leading to a surge in family-based immigration during the 1990s.58
Many argued that, despite its intents, IRCA was a failure. Because of a five-year gap between the date of the law’s enactment and the qualifying date, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants remained in the country without legal status. “Everyone assumed they would just leave, that the new employer restrictions would push them out,” noted Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute.59 Yet, that did not happen. In fact, the legal loophole increased incentives for more migrants to move to the U.S. illegally, hoping for future amnesties.60 In addition, “Congress didn’t foresee at the time that employers would want more immigrants in the years ahead,” continued Doris Meissner, and the law did not provide a framework to manage larger employment-based migration flows.61
Ultimately, while IRCA was designed to be a “one-time deal” to avoid “a continuing series of amnesties” as noted by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), it was followed by a record increase in the number of immigrants living without authorization in the U.S.62 The issue of undocumented immigration thus remained unsettled.
In 2001, U.S. Congress advanced a bipartisan proposal to introduce the DREAM Act with the goal of creating a path to legal status and permanent residency for undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors. The Act was reintroduced many times since then, but never became law (see Exhibit 7). After 11 years of impasse, in 2012, President Barack Obama signed an executive order introducing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which offered a two-year, renewable deferral from deportation for individuals who entered the U.S. as children without citizenship or legal residency status. The program, which had stringent eligibility criteria, not only protected individuals from deportation, but also guaranteed some basic benefits—such as work permits and the possibility of obtaining employer-sponsored health insurance—that facilitated immigrants’ integration into American society.63
The Gang of Eight and the Immigration Reform
Designing a Path to Citizenship
The first goal of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 was to design a path for the legalization of the undocumented immigrant population residing in the U.S. Individuals who had entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011, were eligible to apply for the change to their legal status (provided that several conditions were met) upon payment of a penalty and an application fee as well as “back taxes” (see Exhibit 1). The Gang of Eight stressed both the
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
7
humanitarian aspect and the potential economic benefits deriving from the legalization of undocumented immigrants.
Days before the Senate approval, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report stating that the immigration bill would have decreased the federal deficit by almost $900 billion over the subsequent 20 years.64 The estimates from the CBO reflected an increase in tax revenues due to both higher payroll and income taxes and a larger labor force. However, the CBO remained silent about the potential redistributional effects on the native worker population, especially among those employed in jobs more likely to attract newly legalized immigrants.
Legalizing the status of undocumented immigrants was a top priority for the Democrats, who were held accountable by their (ethnically, racially, and culturally) diverse constituencies. The majority of Republicans agreed that repatriation of the undocumented foreign-born population was both logistically unfeasible and morally unjustifiable. However, they deemed an increase in border security a necessary condition for the legalization process to occur. This was key, according to the Republican bloc, to prevent the rise of illegal immigration, likely encouraged by expectations of similar amnesties to occur again in the future.
Together with more stringent border security, the 2013 bill also envisaged tighter employment regulation that required employers and firms to electronically verify the legal status of their workers. The logic of this requirement was clear. If employers were prevented from hiring undocumented immigrants—and if the cost of doing so illegally was high enough—the economic benefits for prospective (undocumented) immigrants would have fallen. Coupled with higher costs (in the form of higher risks of crossing the border illegally), lower expected gains would have discouraged (illegal) immigration in the first place. These provisions, the Gang of Eight hoped, would have both facilitated the integration of existing undocumented immigrants (as demanded by Democrats) and increased the security of the U.S. border (as sought by Republicans).
Reforming the Framework for Legal Immigration
Besides fixing the issue of undocumented immigration, the 2013 immigration reform aimed to increase the importance of personal skills and talent in the process of legal immigration. The Gang of Eight planned to expand the high-skilled immigrant visa category (the H1-B) from 85,000 to 180,000, adjusting it flexibly depending on yearly fluctuations in labor demand.65 This provision would have benefitted the U.S. economy in at least two ways. First, flexible—rather than fixed—quotas would have allowed firms to get access to more (foreign) labor during periods of economic growth, while at the same time shielding American workers from immigrants’ competition during recessions. In this way, the economy would have adjusted to shocks more flexibly, thereby smoothing economic cycles. Second, the higher cap of the H1-B visa would have favored the inflow of talent, in turn promoting economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship.66
To reach an agreement between labor unions and employers, members of the Gang of Eight exerted a great deal of effort to mediate between the divergent positions of the two groups. “This issue has always been the deal-breaker on immigration reform,” noted Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “But not this time,” he proudly declared after the negotiations around the Senate bill.67 Labor unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreed on a reform that touched upon four points. First, to satisfy labor unions’ requests, “American workers should have a first crack at available jobs.” Second, to meet firms’ demands, “laws permit businesses to hire foreign workers without having to go through a cumbersome and inefficient process.” Third, combining the previous two elements, the bill would have designed “a mechanism that responds to the needs of business in a market-driven way, while also fully protecting the wages and working conditions of U.S. and immigrant workers.” Finally, the reform introduced “a new kind of worker visa program that does not keep all workers in a permanent temporary status,
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
8
provides labor mobility in a way that still gives American workers a first shot at available jobs, and that automatically adjusts as the American economy expands and contracts.”68
The immigration bill also planned for a gradual but steady shift away from visas allotted to family members of immigrants already in the country and towards those granted based on merit and skills.69,70 Some viewed this as in contrast with the founding principles of America. Yet, the majority of both business leaders and voters recognized that a step in this direction would have made it easier for firms to operate while at the same time allocating resources (and talent in particular) more efficiently.71
The Immigration Debate and the Reform Failure
Several commentators welcomed the 2013 immigration reform as a milestone that “would have secured our borders; bolstered internal security; better protected American workers; and strengthened our economy” while at the same time showing that “principled and compassionate problem-solving is still possible in Washington.”72 Yet, despite such enthusiastic reactions and its success in the Senate, the proposal from the Gang of Eight received fierce attacks, both from the left and from the right.
Labor Market Competition
A minority within the Republican Party complained that, even though U.S. firms would have benefitted from the reform, the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants would have increased labor market competition for American unskilled workers, depressing their wages and hindering their employment prospects. Congress member Mo Brooks (R-AL) worried that 11 million immigrants would have suddenly competed “for jobs when Americans are having such a difficult time in this economy not only getting jobs, but getting quality jobs.”73 These concerns resonated with the skeptical views about immigration expressed by Harvard economist George Borjas, who argued that “immigration has consequences, and these consequences generally imply that some people lose while others benefit.”74 However, they were in contrast with research from UC Berkeley economist David Card, who documented that immigration had not been responsible for the rise in income inequality in the U.S. since the 1960s.75 Findings in Card’s work were consistent with those obtained by Giovanni Peri, professor of economics at UC Davis, who concluded that “the average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions.”76
Supporters of the bill noted that most undocumented immigrants were already working, though illegally, in the U.S. Thus, legalizing their status would have not changed the supply of labor available to employers. Moreover—the pro-reform bloc argued—hiring an undocumented immigrant did not require paying for his or her insurance, and employers’ bargaining power was stronger when the worker was illegally living in the country. As a result, the wage paid to undocumented immigrants was lower than that paid to legal ones. A 1996 study from the U.S. Department of Labor found that wages of the 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants who were granted legal status with the 1986 reform increased by more than 15% within five years after the legalization took place.77 If anything, legalizing the status of foreign workers, by making their labor more expensive, would have increased firms’ appetite for native workers.
Shifting away from family reunification and increasing the weight given to skills in the admission process might have further reduced competition for unskilled natives, favoring instead the inflow of talented individuals whose skills were in high demand among employers. According to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the bill “[will] help us attract more highly skilled workers in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, which will help our unemployed, underemployed or underpaid American workers find better jobs.”78
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
9
The Fiscal Impact
Many hoped that the 2013 bill, and the legalization of undocumented immigrants in particular, would have produced a large net fiscal surplus because of increased tax revenues. Citing the estimates released by the CBO, Republican Marco Rubio (FL) said the report “confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayer.”79 Those in favor of the bill were also hopeful that, as had happened after the previous amnesty in 1986, the income of migrants would have quickly increased, thereby lowering their reliance on public programs.
Not everyone was convinced, however. Opponents of the bill noted that the undocumented immigrants who would have been legalized were on average poorer and more likely than natives to be on welfare. This would have increased pressure on local public services, including hospitals and public schools. Payments through Medicaid and food stamps would have also increased, and the surge in tax revenues was unlikely to compensate for such increased costs. “The problem is the growth of government programs, the perverse incentive effects that those programs create, and the failures of our education system,” wrote the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.80 Interestingly, similar arguments had been made already in 1977 by Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs, it is another thing to have free immigration to welfare, and you cannot have both” had declared Friedman during a televised address, concluding that “if you have a welfare state… [free immigration] would mean a reduction of everybody to the same uniform level.”81
Critics were also concerned about the unequal distribution of fiscal costs across the country, caused by the clustering of immigrants with different skills and educational levels (see Exhibit 8). Some locations, such as the Silicon Valley or the greater Boston area, might benefit from an influx of high- skilled immigrants who not only pay higher taxes (because of their high income) but are also less likely to consume public goods and to be on welfare. On the contrary, areas with many low-skilled and formerly undocumented immigrants would experience a sudden spike in public goods consumption, potentially crowding out locals. These dynamics would amplify the gap in economic opportunities between areas in the U.S.82
This view was challenged by those who instead argued that even unskilled immigrants would have produced a fiscal surplus, in part by acting as population stabilizers in an aging society like the United States. Since immigrants were, on average, younger than local residents, they had the potential to help “reduce population decline, keep the size of the labor force from shrinking, improve age dependency ratios, and produce positive fiscal gains,” explained Giovanni Peri.83
Border Security
Differences over economic issues represented an important factor behind the failure of the 2013 immigration reform. Yet, the key fault line was the clash over border security and the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Republicans—even those who favored the bill—viewed increased measures to prevent future undocumented immigration as a necessary condition for the 2013 reform. “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it’ll be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes,” stated John Boehner (R-OH). 84 Rand Paul (R-KY) made clear that he would have voted “no” on the bill because he did not believe “it met his standard of securing the border before steps to legalize immigrants begin.”85
“The principle is you cannot make the mistake of Reagan,” stated Representative Raul Labrador (R- ID).86 “Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But, it’s clear that philosophy doesn’t work” added Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who instead
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
10
believed that “without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.”87
The Gang of Eight, however, was confident that doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and installing 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the U.S.–Mexico border would have been a sufficient deterrent for migrants entering the country illegally. Furthermore, the 2013 reform required all employers to electronically verify their workers’ legal status. These measures were designed by taking stock of the failure of the 1986 reform. On the one hand, the bill would have increased the cost of crossing the border. On the other, it would have made employers accountable for the legal status of their workers.
If critics on the right deemed the bill as too lax on border security, those on the left attacked it for imposing excessively tough measures on immigrants’ lives. Bishop Ricardo McClain, pastor of the Church of God Restoration in Kissimmee, Florida, and a member of the PICO National Network, noted that “the proposed legislation falls short by placing unnecessary obstacles and delays in the path to citizenship and could unfairly exclude some of the 11 million aspiring Americans.”88 Even though President Barack Obama was not involved in the development of the bill, he was held accountable for its success—in particular, for the legalization of undocumented immigrants—by the large Hispanic voting bloc that had been pivotal to his election in 2012. Lack of progress had generated so much frustration among the Latino community that Janet Murguia, the President of the National Council of La Raza, labeled Obama the “deporter-in-chief,” pushing him to unilaterally stop repatriations of undocumented immigrants.89 Pressured by the most liberal fringe in their coalition, Democratic members of the Gang of Eight made it clear that “if we don’t have a path to citizenship, there is no reform.”90
Immigration: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era “Immigration is an intensely painful topic . . . because it places basic principles in conflict” noted
Nobel Prize winner in Economics and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.91 In American history, immigration and political polarization co-moved almost perfectly (see Exhibit 9): periods of high polarization and political divisions were also characterized by high immigration. The debate about the 2013 Senate bill was no exception: even on a proposal crafted by a bipartisan commission, which was supported in a Democratic-dominated Senate by as many as 14 GOP members, legislators were unable to reach an agreement. Even within the Democratic Party, many were unwilling to fully support the bill. In the end, the long-awaited immigration reform failed.
Democrats blamed the Republican Party for pulling out of the negotiations and refusing to bring the Senate bill to the floor of the House. Some speculated that this was a political tactic to avoid immigration reform during a midterm election year.92 After the defeat suffered by Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential election, many within the Republican Party were convinced that catering to the vote of the growing Hispanic population was essential to making the GOP competitive. Commenting on the election results, in March 2013, the Republican National Convention stated that the Party had to “embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”93 These and similar positions had initially given hope to Democrats that comprehensive immigration reform was possible.
However, by the summer of 2013, the long-run political benefits, which may have manifested only in 2016 or 2020, were more than offset by the short-run costs that many Republican Representatives may have paid in the upcoming midterm elections. “97% of Republican House districts in the 113th Congress have white majorities,” noted a report from the Brookings Institution, suggesting that the political incentives to stand for the reform within the GOP were low.94 The surprise defeat of Majority
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
11
Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in the Republican primaries further exacerbated concerns about the political costs of supporting the immigration bill.95 Even though many forces were responsible for Cantor’s loss, “the role of immigration reform quickly hardened into conventional wisdom: his support of incremental immigration measures hurt him, and as a result, other Republicans wouldn’t want to touch the issue.”96
On the other hand, Republicans accused Democrats of insisting on crafting a Senate bill, relegating the GOP-controlled House—initially open to comprehensive, bipartisan reform—to a secondary role. Democrats thought that “the path to immigration reform ran not through the House but through the Senate.”97 Even though Republicans manifested their interest in developing a common plan to reform the immigration regime in the House, Democrats wanted to pass a liberal bill to meet the demands of their increasingly progressive constituency. This reflected a deeper trend in the policy platform of the Democratic Party. Until the early 2000s, noted Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, “Democrats were divided on immigration.”98
At the turn of the twenty-first century, Democrats were in favor of immigration; yet most of them were reluctant to embrace it without reservations, and were aware of the potential costs that an influx of immigrants might have generated. In 2006, partly reflecting his disappointment with the lack of immigrants’ assimilation, Barack Obama remarked that “when I am forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”99 In that same year, Paul Krugman, who was notorious for his liberal views on immigration, wrote that immigrants reduced natives’ wages and were a net fiscal burden for the country. Thus, Krugman concluded, “we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”100 All of these concerns had disappeared by 2013. Everyone in the Democratic Party “agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” The “combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs,” commented Peter Beinart in the Atlantic.101
The radicalization of the Democrats’ position reduced the scope for a balanced discussion with Republicans, who instead moved in the other direction, trying to cater to the support of working-class white voters, worried about demographic change even more than the economic consequences of immigration.102 The diverging trends between parties were mirrored by similar dynamics among voters (see Exhibit 10). Increasing polarization was accompanied by lack of mutual trust among both voters and legislators. Survey data revealed that supporters of either party were holding increasingly negative views towards members of the other group—a phenomenon known as “affective polarization” (see Exhibit 11).103 GOP supporters and their elected officials were skeptical about President Obama’s ability to enforce the reform, especially concerning border security.104 According to Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Republican legislators could be divided into three groups: “[those] who were eager to move on reform . . . ; lawmakers who would never vote for an overhaul; and a wide middle swath who might have been open to the leadership’s plan but said their deep distrust of Obama was a significant barrier.”105
Talks and negotiations continued, but no further agreement was possible. The only way for the U.S. to make progress on immigration policy was to rely on executive orders. In November 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive action that granted temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants and protected them from deportation for an indefinite time.106 Even though this measure offered temporary relief to immigrants, it did not permanently settle their status. Neither did it address more fundamental issues with the immigration regime of the U.S. “Getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation . . . does extend beyond my legal authorities,” Obama answered to those demanding more fundamental changes. He continued, “There are certain things I cannot do.”107
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
12
The immigration debate loomed large also during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, when Donald Trump made several controversial statements questioning the quality of immigrants moving to America, especially those coming from non-European countries.108 His aggressive and often charged rhetoric further increased the partisan divide over immigration.109 This, in turn, spilled over to several other issues, fueling broader social and cultural polarization.110 Following his election, Trump immediately enacted a series of executive orders to restrict immigration, in particular from countries that were considered “culturally far” (see Exhibit 12). In 2018, he made headlines asking “why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re s***thole countries… we should have more people from Norway.”111
Many domestic and international observers wondered whether America had repudiated its roots as a “nation of immigrants”,112 becoming a stronghold of staunch anti-immigrant supporters. Partly reflecting President Trump’s stance on immigration, in 2018, the U.S.C.I.S. – the agency granting citizenship to foreign born individuals – changed its mission statement from guaranteeing “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” to “guide us in the years ahead.” According to the former U.S.C.I.S. director, León Rodríguez, the move represented “a particularly sad turn of history.” America should question if “this is really the country we want to be,” added Mr. Rodríguez.113
Immigration and Nativism Around the World
Despite the rising support for nativism, the U.S. remained quite exceptional from a global perspective: compared to most other rich countries around the world as well as to most stable democracies, the U.S. was more ethnically and racially heterogeneous (see Exhibit 13), likely because of its history of relatively open immigration. Most European countries were significantly more homogenous than the U.S., and the same was true for Japan, South Korea, and Australia.114 Although the lack of diversity in these countries was influenced by several factors, they shared a purposeful use of immigration policies to preserve their racial and ethnic homogeneities.115
In Japan, sakoku – an isolationist policy introduced in 1641 that remained in place for more than 200 years – restricted both immigration and trade in order to preserve and foster a “homogeneous society,” characterized by “one civilization, one language, one culture, and one race.”116 Mirroring the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in the United States in 1882 (later repealed with the 1965 Immigration Act), Australia introduced the Immigration Restriction Act, also known as White Australia policy, in 1901. The bill prevented any non-European immigrant from entering the country and contributed to “the development of a racially insulated white society.”117 Even though the legislation was amended and made less stringent, especially after 1973, its cultural legacy lasted for a long time.118 At the other end of the spectrum, in countries with high levels of immigration, foreign-born workers often faced precarious conditions, with limited – if any – protection. Moreover, when the foreign born population exceeded the native born one, as in many Gulf countries, immigrants rarely had access to social welfare and other forms of public goods (from health care to schooling to training programs), not to mention a road to actual citizenship.
Australia
As of 2020, Australia ranked 8th in the world, with a score of 97 (out of 100), for its protection of human rights according to Freedom House.119 Its point-based immigration system was considered a model to attract high skilled workers and select the most talented individuals around the world. According to the Center for Global Development, Australia had one of “the most development-friendly migration polic[ies]” in 2016, ranking third (out of 27 developed countries) on the basis of an index that combined multiple criteria (see Exhibit 14).120 Yet, some observers highlighted stark contradictions between these positive assessments and Australia’s policies implemented to preserve its ethnic and
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
13
racial make-up.121 Australia was criticized, in particular, for the practices used to deal with the migration of refugees and forcibly displaced individuals. The system was defined “cruel and damaging by its very nature” by Jonathon Hunyor, CEO of the non-profit organization and charity Public Interest Advocacy Center.122 2001 marked a key turning point for Australian immigration policy. At the end of August of that year, the Australian government denied permission to the freighter MV Tampa, which had rescued more than 400 refugees at sea, to enter Australian water. When the Tampa disregarded the order – hoping to guarantee care for the exhausted and malnourished refugees, many of which were in critical conditions – the Australian government dispatched the Special Air Service (SAS) troops to prevent the ship from approaching the coast any further.123 After long negotiations, the asylum seekers were sent to the independent country of Nauru, where they were interned in two detention camps at Australian expense, and only some of them ever reached their destination (more than 3 years later).124
The international community heavily condemned the episode, accusing Australia of breaching its human rights responsibilities. Yet, at home, the episode was received with strong support, and led to a surge in the government’s popularity.125 This event was the precursor of a broader strategy known as Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB), which was renewed and expanded in September 2013.126 The plan was designed by then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, who became Prime Minister in 2018, with the explicit goal of forcibly deterring displaced individuals from seeking asylum in Australia (see Exhibit 15 for an advertisement of the OSB campaign). At the core of the OSB was the decision to place, for an indefinite amount of time, any refugee trying to reach Australia on the islands of Nauru or Manus. Yet, “once sent offshore, asylum seekers have little hope of ever reaching Australia,” remaining stuck at detention centers in miserable conditions for years.127 The Australian government responded to the criticism of the international community by arguing that the OSB saved thousands of lives by “deterring smugglers and migrants.”128 The alleged benefits, though, came at huge human costs for refugees interred in the camps.
Conditions were so deplorable that dozens of children had to be evacuated for “urgent medical care”, with many instances involving “children who have repeatedly attempted suicide or who have become withdrawn and stopped eating or drinking,” as explained by the director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Center in Melbourne, Daniel Webb.129 The former chief psychiatrist at the detention centers, Dr. Peter Young, “described the camps as ‘inherently toxic’ and said the immigration department deliberately harmed vulnerable detainees in a process akin to torture.” Dr. Young was echoed by traumatologist and psychologist Paul Stevenson, who stressed that “the conditions in Nauru and Manus camps were the worst ‘atrocity’ he had ever seen.”130 When asked about his plans over refugee policies in 2018, though, Mr. Morrison claimed that he “was the one who stopped them” (i.e., the arrival of migrants), and that any change to the existing legislation would have not been “consistent with the border protection regime put in place.”131
Japan
With an old and aging population and with low fertility rates, already in the 2000s Japan would have benefitted from increasing the number of immigrants, who are typically younger and with higher fertility rates than natives.132 Many noted that “letting more people in may be the only way to reverse the slide to stagnation and decline.”133 This would have been a major change for a country that historically placed strong emphasis on traditional values and cultural homogeneity, designing immigration policies that kept the foreign-born share of the population below 2% at least until 2015.134 Since the early 2000s, aware of the threats posed to the economy by demographic changes, Japan began to adopt less restrictive policies, allowing the inflow of more foreign workers. Until 2018, a cautious approach was followed, so as “to improve immigrant retention and boost recruitment incrementally under existing immigration policy…while avoiding a potentially contentious public referendum” that may have been triggered by more radical reforms.135
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
14
The immigration reforms seemed to bear fruits, as Japan saw its immigrant population share increase from 0.88% in 1990 to 2.3% in 2019. 136 Despite this apparent success, however, many problems remained. For one, previous attempts at increasing immigration had given at best mixed results, questioning the ability of the government to stick with the (pro-immigration) plan. Emblematic was the case of Japanese descendants from Brazil and Peru who were allowed to move to Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but were offered a lump sum transfer and paid the flight ticket to go back home a few decades later, amid increasing backlash among the Japanese population.137 Even as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, “thinking the previously unthinkable”, aimed to attract more than 340,000 foreign-born workers to Japan between 2018 and 2024, he was “careful to stress that this is not `immigration’, because these workers are not supposed to stay indefinitely.”138 Indeed, the government did not devote any resource to facilitate immigrants’ integration. “The system is not in place to accept foreigners as human beings,” wrote member of the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Akira Nagatsuma, who also worried that Japan was not doing enough to prepare foreign-born workers for their new life in Japan and to protect their rights. “What about their social welfare? What about their housing? What about their Japanese language education? None of these have been dealt with,” continued Akira Nagatsuma.139 “This isn’t about Japan becoming a multicultural society,” echoed Professor of Japanese politics and society, Gabriele Vogt. “This is just very plain labor market politics.”140
“Economic imperatives and cultural consensus are at war…It’s no longer possible for the country to continue to pretend it can get by without migrants. But it’s politically impossible to truly welcome them, either” noted political commentator Francisco Toro.141 Mirroring the experience of many other countries – from France to Italy to the U.S. to Sweden – also in Japan fears of immigration and diversity triggered backlash, which included rallies organized by the far-right party Japan First.142 While support for Japan First was slim, and many condemned the extreme positions of the party, concerns over social change and disruptions associated with immigration were widespread. Many worried that foreigners were unable to understand the subtle norms, such as “kuui wo yomu” (“reading the air”), which often involved “near telepathic understanding of the unspoken social minutiae of daily life” in a rich and complex culture.143 Kei Hakata, Professor at Seiki University in Tokyo, remarked that opposition and concerns over immigration were expected to rise among “ordinary people who want to preserve their culture, history and identity,” and that should not be labeled as xenophobia. “It’s a defense mechanism at work,” continued Kei Hakata.144
Arab Gulf Countries
Fueled by the oil boom of the 1970s, immigration to the Gulf countries skyrocketed. As of 2018, immigrants vastly out-numbered natives in both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where they accounted for more than 88% of the total population (see Exhibit 16 for trends in the immigrant and total population in the UAE).145 While lower, numbers were remarkable also in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where the immigrant share of the population stood at 37% and 48%, respectively.146 Most migrants were unskilled and were employed as temporary workers in the construction industry or, in particular women, as domestic labor. Working conditions in the Arab Gulf countries had historically been regulated by the exploitative kafala system,147 where immigrants faced “near-feudal conditions that Human Rights Watch has likened to `forced labor’.”148
Under this system, foreign workers would need a sponsor in order to be employed. Even if some differences existed, the leitmotif was always the same: once in host countries, migrants were fully dependent upon their employers, and did not have any protection or right. This typically resulted in “hazardous working conditions, long hours, unpaid wages, and cramped and unsanitary housing.”149 In many instances, migrants had their passports confiscated for the duration of their stay and could not leave their employers. Conditions were particularly dismal for construction workers, who were
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
15
“housed by employers in camps and [were] reliant on them for food and drink,”150 and for domestic female workers, who often suffered abuses and violence perpetrated by their native employers.151 When asked why she decided to move to Dubai, despite the precarious and dangerous working conditions, Mary Molina Ramos, a 39 year-old woman from the Philippines, answered “It feels good to support my family…I am so happy I will be able to send my daughter to university next year.”152 Ms. Ramos was one of the millions of migrant workers in the Arab Gulf countries who sent remittances back to their home countries. “The G.C.C. is one of the highest remittance outflow areas globally, with Saudi Arabia coming in second in the world after the United States,” explained Professor George Naufal from the American University of Sharjah (UAE).153 As noted by Western Union’s vice president for the Gulf, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Sobia Rahman, remittances were not only “putting food on the table and paying medical bills…They are contributing heavily to the human capital buildup in their home countries by educating the next generation.”154
Responding to pressure from the international community, some countries – most notably Qatar and Bahrain – introduced changes to improve workers’ conditions, such as establishing a minimum wage and relaxing restrictions to workers’ mobility.155 These changes, however, were viewed as ineffective by many labor-rights advocates, who believed that, in practice, the kafala system remained in place.156 Authorities in most Gulf countries were aware that, over time, exploitative conditions would have reduced immigrants’ incentives to move there, in turn putting at risk their economies, which relied almost exclusively on foreign workers.
The persistence of the kafala system may have also discouraged international investors to fund projects in the G.C.C. area, both because of moral considerations and because of fears over future instability potentially triggered by sudden unrest among foreign-born workers.157 More than 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka had died in Qatar since the country was awarded the 2022 World Cup in 2010, or about 12 a week (not counting those from other countries). Since many who died had been involved in building stadiums and such for the event, some players and observers called for a boycott.158 However, natives strongly opposed the idea of weakening the kafala system — something that would increase labor costs and reduce their privileges. In a survey conducted in Qatar, more than 90% of Qataris were against the dismantling of the kafala, and 30% of them were in favor of reducing workers’ rights and prerogatives even further. In an environment where migrant workers had no voice, demands from the native population were hard to ignore. Any attempt to introduce reforms “must go slowly,” declared Hussein al-Mulla, the Labor Ministry of Qatar.159
Conclusion Immigration had played a foundational role in human history, and particularly so in that of the
United States. “The realization of America’s vast economic potential has… been due in significant measure to the efforts of immigrants. They supplied much of the labor and technical skill needed to tap the underdeveloped resources of a virgin continent,” wrote historian Maldwin Jones when describing the impact of European immigrants moving to the U.S. during the Age of Mass Migration.160 “Global talent has been an enormous boon to the United States,” echoed William Kerr referring to immigrants from practically any other continent in the world for the more recent period.161 Immigrants’ contributions were not merely economic: kindergarten was imported by German immigrant Friederich Fröbel,162 whereas the university system introduced by many U.S. states built on the Prussian model.163 Immigration also enriched American culture, from cinema to cuisine to sports,164 and left its footprint on political ideology.165 “It helps to remember that America’s immigrant history made us who we are,” declared former Republican President George W. Bush.166
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
16
During the presidency of Donald Trump, characterized by immigration restrictions, travel bans, and the resurgence of nativism, a casual observer may have concluded that America had repudiated its very same identity, as exemplified by Emma Lazarus’ poem “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”167 Yet, upon a closer look, this was nothing new. Immigrants – no matter if they came from Norway,168 from Mexico,169 or from any other country170 – always triggered heated debates, stark polarization, and led to the introduction of stringent immigration policies.171 Opposition to immigration was perhaps more surprising in the United States, given its history, but was a phenomenon common to most countries in the world.172 Some observers speculated that concerns about immigration were a key factor behind the 2016 Brexit vote.173 Others suggested that the rising support for populist parties across Europe since 2010 was linked to immigration.174 Even when anti-immigrant sentiments were not explicit, they nonetheless contributed to the design of stringent policies to maintain cultural and ethnic homogeneity, such as in South Korea or in Japan.175
Skepticism towards immigration was sometimes linked to the threats posed by immigrants to native workers’ employment and wages. Others argued that immigrants represented a fiscal burden for host countries and benefitted from social welfare programs paid for by natives. In many instances, however, “non-economic forces are at least as important as economic ones,” and “backlash is more likely to emerge when immigrants are `different’ (culturally, racially, ethnically) from natives,” argued Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and others.176 This was not so surprising. After all, homophily tended to prevail at the interpersonal level,177 most individuals favored “in-group” members over “out-group” ones,178 and people were typically worried about diversity and uncertainty.179
When the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, between January and March 2020, most countries, including the United States, introduced stringent travel restrictions, leading to a drastic drop in international mobility.180 Such restrictions were initially designed as temporary measures to prevent the spread of the virus; however, some worried that they could become permanent and that several countries (especially in the developed world) could use health-related motivations as an excuse to enact restrictive, long-lasting immigration legislation.181 Others feared that the pandemic might have exacerbated the distinction between “insiders” and “outsiders”, fueling the scapegoating of minorities.182
From an economist’s perspective, limitations on international mobility and the heightened fears of diversity would impose tremendous costs on the U.S. and the global economy by altering the efficient allocation of talent and resources. More importantly, they would have dramatic consequences for millions of individuals who, every year, sought to escape wars, natural disasters, and extreme poverty. Indeed, a late 2018 Gallup poll suggested that more than 750 million people in the world would emigrate if they could.183 But what did this entail for human capital and development in the countries from which people left? What were the global consequences of immigration for sending and receiving countries, not to mention for expatriate people themselves? And why had ideologies of globalization largely focused on the free movement of goods and capital, but not people? Was America (and the world) again closing down, or would a new era dawn in which humans, and not only capital and goods, became free to move as they pleased?
Immigration policy in the U.S. had been at an impasse for four decades, but the country’s example continued to matter for the international system more broadly. In early 2021, the future of globalization itself depended on the stance that the newly elected U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris decided to adopt on the issue.

For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
17
Exhibit 1 Summary of Provisions Included in the 2013 Senate Bill
CITIZENSHIP PATH FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
Necessary Preliminary Conditions
• Roughly doubling the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border • Completing 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the border • Implementing a system for all employers to verify electronically their workers’ legal status
Citizenship Path
• People living in the U.S. illegally could obtain “registered provisional immigrant status” if (i) They arrived in the U.S. prior to Dec. 31, 2011, and maintained continuous physical
presence since then (ii) They did not have a felony conviction or three or more misdemeanors (iii) They paid a $500 fine
• People in provisional legal status could work and travel to the U.S. but would not be eligible for most federal benefits, including health care and welfare
• The provisional legal status would last six years and would be renewable for another six years upon payment of $500
• After 10 years in provisional status, immigrants could seek a green card and lawful permanent resident status if they were currently on their taxes and pay a $1,000 fine, had maintained continuous physical presence in the U.S., met work requirements and learnt English
• People deported for noncriminal reasons could apply to re-enter in provisional status if they had a spouse or a child who was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, or if they had been brought to the U.S. as a child
NEW FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION
Low-Skilled Workers
• New W visa for jobs in construction, long-term care, hospitality and other industries (200,000 low-skilled workers a year)
• Agriculture workers already in the U.S. illegally, who worked in the industry for at least two years, could qualify for another five years for green cards if they were to stay in the industry
High-Skilled Workers
• Raised cap on the H-1B visa program for high-skilled workers. The cap could go as high as 180,000 a year depending on demand
• Immigrants with certain extraordinary abilities, such as professors, researchers, graduates of U.S. universities with job offers, multinational executives and athletes, would be exempted from existing green-card limits
• New merit visa (for max 250,000 people a year) with a point system based on education, employment and length of residence in the U.S.
• Startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs seeking to start a company in the U.S. • Suppression of the government’s Diversity Visa Lottery Program
Source: Adapted from Associated Press, “Immigration bill summary,” Politico, June 28, 2013, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
18
Exhibit 2 Immigrants as a Percent of the U.S. Population
Source: Tabellini, M. (2020). “Gifts of the Immigrants, Woes of the Natives: Lessons from the Age of Mass Migration,” Review
of Economic Studies, 87(1): 454-486.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
19
Exhibit 3 Number of Immigrants Entering the U.S. (in thousands)
Source: Casewriter based on Migration Policy Institute tabulations of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (various years), available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history….
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
20
Exhibit 4 Foreign-Born Share of the U.S. Population over Time
Source: Casewriter based on data from the decennial U.S. Population Census until 2010 and from the American Community
Survey (ACS) after 2010, obtained from Ruggles, Steven, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Joasiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek (2020). “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 10.0,” Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
21
Exhibit 5 Number of Undocumented Immigrants Residing in the U.S. (in millions)
Source: Adapted by casewriter from Passel, Jeffrey S., and Cohn, D’vera, “Mexicans Decline to Less than Half the U.S.
Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time,” Pew Research Center Fact Tank, June 12, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/. Original data are from Pew Research Center estimates based on augmented U.S. Census Bureau data.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
22
Exhibit 6 Summary of Provisions Included in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
BORDER ENFORCEMENT
• Introduced new criminal penalties for fraudulent use of identity documents and for knowingly transporting or harboring unauthorized immigrants
• Increased appropriations for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which handled immigration enforcement, and for the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which adjudicated deportation cases
• Scheduled a 50% increase (from its 1986 level) in the number of Border Patrol agents IMMIGRANT WORKERS
• Introduced civil and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants
• Introduced a verification procedure for employers to verify and document the lawful status of new hires
• Made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a job applicant based on his or her national origin or citizenship status
LEGALIZATION PATH
• Unauthorized immigrants who had been continuously present in the United States since January 1, 1982, could apply for temporary, and later permanent, legal status if they met certain conditions. Such applicants could eventually qualify for U.S. citizenship.
• Allowed federal reimbursement to states for the costs of incarcerating certain unauthorized immigrants who had committed crimes
NEW PROGRAMS
• H-2A guest worker program for agricultural employers to sponsor foreign-born temporary guest workers for up to three years
• First visa waiver pilot program, which allowed nationals from certain countries to enter the United States visa-free for up to 90 days for either business or tourism purposes
• Introduction of the SLIAG program to reduce the financial burden of providing public assistance, public health assistance, and educational services to eligible legalized aliens. In Fiscal Year 1988, $928.5 million in program funds were allocated to states.
• Introduction of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the immigration status of recipients of public benefits.
Source: Adapted by casewriter from Chishti, M., D. Meissner, and C. Bergeron (2011). “At Its 25th Anniversary, IRCA’s Legacy Lives On,” Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, November 2011.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
23
Exhibit 7 The (Failed) History of the DREAM Act
Date Main Sponsor Name Main Points Reason for Failure
December 2001
House of Representatives
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, (R)
Development, Relief, and Education for Allen, Minors Act or the DREAM Act [S.1291]
Permit states to grant temporal conditional residency for higher education purposes for those undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors.
Did not pass the Senate
December 2005
House of Representatives
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R)
Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act
Criminalization of undocumented migration, from civil violation to federal felony.
Failed to pass the Senate
May 2006
Senate
Sen. Alren Specter, (R)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act [S.2611]
Increase border and internal security; provide a path for legalization of undocumented immigrants.
Did not pass the House
May 2007
Senate
Sen. Harry Reid, (D) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348]
As in the 2006 act, undocumented migrants would have to apply for legalization from abroad.
The Senate failed to invoke cloture and the bill was then pulled from the floor
November 2010
House of Representatives
Rep. Howard L. Berman, (D) Sen. Richard J. Durbin, (D) (in Senate)
DREAM Act of 2010 [H.R.6497]
Provide temporary residence permits for children who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met predetermined requirements.
Approved in the House but failed to pass the Senate
June 2013
Senate
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, (D)
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act [S.744]
Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants; attract workers; devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.- Mexico border.
Failed to pass the House
July 2017
Senate
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R)
DREAM Act of 2017 [S.1615]
Less stringent requirements to acquire citizenship, with respect to the 2010 version.
Failed
Source: Adapted by casewriter from: Zepeda-Millán, C. (2017). Latino Mass Mobilization: Immigration, Racialization, and Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; from the Migration Policy Institute at the links https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-and-united-states-recession-affects-flows-prospects- reform#3 and https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/side-side-comparison-2013-senate-immigration- framework-2006-and-2007-senate-legislation
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-and-united-states-recession-affects-flows-prospects-reform#3
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-and-united-states-recession-affects-flows-prospects-reform#3
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-and-united-states-recession-affects-flows-prospects-reform#3
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/side-side-comparison-2013-senate-immigration-framework-2006-and-2007-senate-legislation
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/side-side-comparison-2013-senate-immigration-framework-2006-and-2007-senate-legislation
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/side-side-comparison-2013-senate-immigration-framework-2006-and-2007-senate-legislation

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
24
Exhibit 8 Distribution of Immigrants by Skill, Across U.S. Local Labor Market (2013)
Panel A: High-Skilled Immigrants

Panel B: Low-Skilled Immigrants
Source: Casewriter based on data from the 2013 five-year estimates of the American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census
Bureau.
Note: Panel A plots the number of high-skilled immigrants per 1,000 PUMA residents. Panel B plots the number of low- skilled immigrants per 1,000 PUMA residents. High- and low-skilled immigrants were defined as foreign-born individuals who were not in school and were at least 18 years old with at least a college degree and with at most a high school (or equivalent) degree, respectively. Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) were statistical geographic areas nested within states (or equivalent units that were based on counties and census tracts), were geographically contiguous, and contained at least 100,000 people.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
25
Exhibit 9 Immigration and Polarization in the U.S. Congress and Senate
Source: Adapted by casewriter from Alesina, A. and M. Tabellini (2020). “The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or
Economics?” CEPR Working Paper 15486. Data on immigration are from Migration Policy Institute (adapted from U.S. Census data): tabulations of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (various years). Available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us- immigration-trends#history…. Data on political ideology are from Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database (Lewis, J. B., Poole, K., Rosenthal, H., Boche, A., Rudkin, A. and Sonnet, L., 2020)

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
26
Exhibit 10 Percentage of Respondents (by Party) Who Agree That “Immigrants Today Strengthen Our Country Because of Their Hard Work and Talents”
Source: Adapted by casewriter from Jones, B, “Americans’ Views of Immigrants Marked by Widening Partisan, Generational
Divides,” Pew Research Center, April 15, 2016. Data are from Pew Research Survey conducted in March, 2016.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
27
Exhibit 11 Growing affective polarization
Source: Casewriter based on data from the American National Election Studies (ANES).
Note: The red line plots the average feelings of Republicans towards the Democratic Party minus the average feelings of Republicans towards the Republican Party on a scale from 0 to 100. The blue line plots the analogous series for Democrats. The grey, dashed line plots the difference between the blue and red lines.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
28
Exhibit 12 Immigration policies and executive orders during Donald Trump’s Presidency
President Trump Immigration Policies 2017 – 2020
Date Executive Order Summary Status
25-Jan-17 Executive Order 13768, Executive
Order 13767
Trump signed two executive orders. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (13768) introduced
penalties on sanctuary cities and made them ineligible for federal grants, prioritized the deportation of individuals who
posed a threat to national security, and reinstated the “Secure Communities” deportation program. The second
order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” called for the construction of the border
wall.
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the US: preliminary injunction halted its enforcement
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvements: in place
27-Jan-17 Executive Order 13780
“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (13780) suspended the refugee admission
program for 120 days and banned immigrants and nonimmigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,
and Yemen for 90 days.
Revoked and replaced by March 16th order.
10-Feb-17 ICE conducts
operations targeting criminals
ICE conducted a series of enforcement operations to target convicted criminals, gang members, and individuals who had re-entered the country after being deported, which resulted
in more than 680 arrests by February 13th (3 days later).
N/A
20-Feb-17 DHS issues guidance on enforcement of immigration laws
Two guidance memos were released. “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvement Policies” provided guidance for Trump’s previous executive order, covering a wide range of
immigration issues. “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” prioritized the removal of
individuals convicted or charged with a crime.
N/A
6-Mar-17 Executive Order 13780
Trump revised “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” removing Iraq from the original list of countries after its government instituted new vetting
procedures. It also specified that current visa holders weren’t affected and removed the indefinite suspension on Syrian
refugee admission.
See September 24, 2017 revision
20-Mar- 17
DHS issues first detainer report
The DHS released a report highlighting jurisdictions that have declined to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers for potentially removable individuals who have
been arrested or held in police custody.
N/A
18-Apr-17 Executive Order 13788
Executive order, “Buy American and Hire American” that directed federal agencies to comply with laws that require prioritizing American firms and goods when contracting for
projects. It also directed the secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of labor, and secretary of homeland
security to develop new regulations to prevent fraud and abuse of the immigration system.
In place
15- Jun-17
Trump administration
rescinds Deferred Action for Parents of
Americans (DAPA) policy
John Kelly rescinded a policy that suspended the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission
who were parents of US citizens. N/A
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
29
President Trump Immigration Policies 2017 – 2020
Date Executive Order Summary Status
11-Jul-17
DHS delays implementation of
International Entrepreneur Rule
The DHS delayed the implementation of a rule from the Obama administration that would have allowed
entrepreneurs from foreign countries to enter the United States for 30 months to establish a startup business. It was
delayed from July 17 to March 14.
N/A
25-Jul-17
New Byrne criminal justice grant
requirements for cities and states
Localities receiving Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which provide federal funding to states and localities for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, would need to
meet new conditions to remain eligible.
There were two lawsuits against it: one from Chicago and another
from California. A nationwide injunction
against the grant requirements was
upheld on April 19, 2018.
2-Aug-17
S.1103: Reforming American
Immigration for a Strong Economy Act
The proposed Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act would give immigrants points based on
education, English-language ability, high-paying job offers, age, record of extraordinary achievement, and
entrepreneurial initiative. In order to be eligible for a visa, an individual would need to earn 30 points. It would also
eliminate the Diversity Lottery.
Did not receive a vote in the Senate, though a
similar legislation supported by Trump was defeated in 2018. It was
reintroduced in 2019.
5-Sep-17 Trump administration ends DACA
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that they would be rescinding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
The program was established underneath the Obama administration and provided temporary relief from
deportation for individuals who had been brought without legal permission to the United States as children.
This was supposed to go into effect on March 5, 2018; however, federal judges in San Francisco
and New York issued preliminary injunctions
requiring the Trump administration to
continue renewing DACA permits until the court reached a final decision
on DACA.
18-Sep-17
U.S. State Department outlines new requirements for
visa holders
The Secretary of State issued a memo outlining new requirements for visa holders. Individuals who obtain a visa before entering the country must abide by their stated plan
for at least three months, rather than the previous 1 month. If events occur within this period that were not mentioned, the
US State Department will presume the visa holder deliberately misrepresented their reasons for coming to the
US and they will be eligible for deportation.
In place
24-Sep-17 Executive Order 13780
Trump issued guidelines to his March 6th executive order, outlining new travel restrictions that vary by country on certain individuals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen which would take
effect on October 18th, 2017.
On October 20, 2017 US District Judge Derrick
Watson issued a preliminary injunction
against the restrictions, preventing them from going into effect. The
Supreme Court allowed the full plan to take effect
on December 4.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
30
President Trump Immigration Policies 2017 – 2020
Date Executive Order Summary Status
27-Sep-17
Trump administration limits number of refugees to be
admitted to the U.S. to 45,000
Trump announced he would allow no more than 45,000 refugees into the US during 2018 in order to make sure that
all refugees are properly vetted. The ceiling had never slipped lower than 67,000 under Reagan.
In place
24-Oct-17
Restrictions on refugee admissions
expire; new guidelines in place
The suspension of refugee admissions outlined in the March 6 executive order expired. Trump issued a new executive order
ordering refugee admissions to resume with new national security procedures.
In place
20-Nov-17
DHS announces end date for program
allowing Haitians to live and work in U.S.
The Temporary Protected Status designation for Haiti after its 2010 earthquake was terminated. Haitians living in the US had until July 22, 2019 to return to Haiti or apply for lawful
immigration to the US.
N/A
5-Jan-18
Trump administration sends list of
immigration priorities to lawmakers
The Trump administration outlined a list of immigration priorities: $18 billion to construct the wall, an end to chain
migration, an end to the diversity-visa lottery, changes to the asylum system, mandatory use of the e-Verify system for
businesses to check the employment status of prospective employees, and $33 billion in new border security spending
over 10 years.
N/A
8-Jan-18
DHS announces end date for program
allowing El Salvadorans to live
and work in U.S.
DHS Secretary announced the termination of the TPS designation for El Salvador, giving El Salvadorans until
September 9, 2019 to either return to El Salvador or apply for lawful immigration status in the US. The decision faced much
criticism
N/A
24-Jan-18
Trump says he supports a pathway
to citizenship for DACA recipients
President Trump said he supported a 10-12 year time frame to give individuals who were brought into the US without
legal permission as children a pathway to citizenship. He also said he would consider moving back the expiration date of
March 5, 2018 if Congress failed to pass into a law a legislative fix.
N/A
25-Jan-18
Trump administration releases initial framework for
immigration plan
The Trump administration released an immigration plan that would allow as many as 1.8 million individuals who were brought into the US without legal permission as children
citizenship in exchange for $25 billion in border security and other changes to the immigration system.
Rejected (see February 15, 2018)
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
31
President Trump Immigration Policies 2017 – 2020
Date Executive Order Summary Status
15-Feb-18 Senate rejects four immigration reform
proposals
The Senate began voting on a series of immigration bills aimed at finding a legislative fix for the expiring DACA
program and border security measures. It rejected a measure proposing a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals
brought into the US illegally as children. It also rejected an amendment that proposed withholding “certain non-law
enforcement federal grant funds from ‘sanctuary cities’“, a bipartisan proposal for the path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought to the US illegally as children, $25 billion
for border security, and limitations on family-based immigration. A proposal that included Trump’s four
immigration pillars (a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals, $25 billion for border security, limits on chain
migration, and eliminating the visa lottery system) was also rejected.
N/A
6-Mar-18 DOJ files lawsuit
against California’s immigration laws
The DOJ filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor Jerry Brown, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra
for passing three state laws (Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103) that the DOJ said prevent officials from
enforcing federal immigration law.
N/A
2-Apr-18 Justice Department
announces quotas for immigration judges
The DOJ announced quotas aimed at shortening the backlog of immigration cases which requiring judges to close 700
cases per year. In place
4-Apr-18
Trump signs memorandum to
deploy troops to U.S.- Mexico border
Trump signed a memorandum to deploy National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border to combat a surge of illegal
activity, saying that the situation has reached a point of crisis. N/A
7-May-18
Trump administration announces it will
prosecute parents who cross the border
with their children
Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would prosecute parents who crossed the US border illegally with their children, calling for the parents to be separated from
their children and for their children to be placed in shelters or with families. A lot of criticism arose opposing this policy.
Continued at least unofficially until October
2019.
11-Jun-18
Sessions says individuals who are victims of private
crime not eligible for asylum
Jeff Sessions announced that individuals who are victims of private crime (incl. domestic and gang violence) would no
longer qualify for asylum in the US.
Judge Emmett Sullivan called the Trump asylum
policy “arbitrary” and “capricious” on
December 19, 2018, ruling in favor of 12
adults and children who had challenged the
policy.
20-Jun-18 Executive Order 13841
“Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation” was an Executive Order that President Donald Trump signed, directing the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to keep detained families together. The order also called on the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in
providing housing for families when detention centers are at capacity.
In place
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
32
President Trump Immigration Policies 2017 – 2020
Date Executive Order Summary Status
26-Oct-18 Trump administration
to send troops to U.S.-Mexico border
The Secretary of Defense approved a request from the DHS to send additional members of the military to the southwest
border to assist border patrol agents with a convoy of thousands of migrants trying to enter the US. 5,200 troops
would be deployed to accompany the 2,000 National Guard troops that had already been sent in April 2018.
N/A
9-Nov-18 Proclamation 9822
Trump signed a presidential proclamation preventing migrants who enter the country without legal permission
from claiming asylum. The same day he issued the proclamation, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center,
and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the administration.
On November 19, 2018 US District Court Judge
Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s
presidential proclamation on asylum
on the grounds that it conflicted with the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1965.
20-Dec-18
DHS announces some migrants will be sent
back to Mexico to await immigration
proceedings
The DHS announced that individuals attempting to enter the US without legal permission or proper documentation could
be returned to Mexico while waiting for immigration proceedings.
In place
15-Feb-19
Trump signs bill to fund parts of the government and border barrier;
declares state of emergency
Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. Because he didn’t get the amount requested ($5.7 billion), he declared a state emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1
billion towards the wall.
Sixteen states filed suit against Trump’s
emergency declaration, and on February 26,
2019 the House passed a resolution to overturn
the emergency declaration.
22-Apr-20 Proclamation 10015
Trump issued the “Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak” proclamation. This proclamation suspended the entry of certain classes of
aliens as immigrants into the United States for a period of 60 days, starting on April 23, 2020.
On June 22, 2020, Trump extended the suspension of entry in Proclamation
10052.
18-Jun-20
SCOTUS rules DHS did not properly follow
APA when seeking to end DACA
The SCOTUS ruled in DHS v. Regents of the University of California that DHS did not properly follow Administrative Procedure Act procedures when it sought to end the DACA
program in 2017.
In place
22-Jun-20 Proclamation 10052
Trump issued the “Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus
Outbreak” proclamation. This extends the suspension of entry for certain immigrants (Presidential Proclamation 10014)
through December 31, 2020.
In place
9-Jul-20 Executive Order 13935
Trump issued the “White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative”, an order to improve Hispanic Americans’ access to
educational and economic opportunities. In place
Source: Compiled by the casewriter.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
33
Exhibit 13 Racial and ethnic diversity across countries
Source: Fisher, Max. “A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse counties.” The Washington Post, May
16, 2013. Data source: Harvard Institute for Economic Research. See the entire article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and- least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
34
Exhibit 14 Migration-friendly development index (Center for Global Development)

Source: Barder, Owen and Petra Krylová. “Which Countries Have the Best Migration Policies?” Center for Global Development, September 16, 2016, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
35
Exhibit 15 Australian government’s advertisement of Operation Sovereign Borders
Source: Australian Government – Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/….
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU).
Note: Australian government’s advertisement circulated during the “Stop the Boats” campaign (September 2013).

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/…
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/…
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
36
Exhibit 16 Total and foreign born population in the UAE over time
Source: Adapted by casewriter from F. De Bel-Air, “Demography, Migration, and the Labour Market in the UAE,” Explanatory
Note No. 7/2015, GLMM, http://gulfmigration.eu…. Data are from the National Bureau of Statistics/ Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority.

http://gulfmigration.eu…/
http://gulfmigration.eu…/

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
37
Endnotes
1 Rachel Weiner, “Immigration’s Gang of 8: Who are they?” January 28, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- fix/wp/2013/01/28/immigrations-gang-of-8-who-are-they/, accessed November 2020. 2 Mascaro, Lisa, and Brian Bennett. “Immigration Reform Bill Heads to Full Senate.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2013. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor- 20130521-story.html. 3 Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 16, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html. 4 POLITICO, and Seung Min Kim. “Senate Passes Immigration Bill.” POLITICO, June 27, 2013. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530. 5 Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all. 6 ImmigrationWorks was a group that represented the interests of small businesses. 7 Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all. 8 For polarization in American society and in American politics see, among others, Abramowitz, Alan I. (2018). The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press; and Klein, Ezra. (2020). Why We’re Polarized. Profile Books. 9 O’Keefe, Ed. “Senate Approves Comprehensive Immigration Bill.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, June 27, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32- 11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html. 10 Gomez, Alan. “‘Gang of Eight’ Immigration Bill Draws Mixed Reviews.” USA TODAY. USATODAY, April 16, 2013. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/. 11 Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 13, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all. 12 Bump, Philip. “The Atlantic.” The Atlantic. theatlantic, November 13, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/boehner-kills-senate-immigration-bill-2012-gops-dismay/355071/. 13 O’Keefe, Ed. “Senate Approves Comprehensive Immigration Bill.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, June 27, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32- 11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html . 14 Silverleib, Alan. “Senate Passes Sweeping Immigration Bill,” CNN Politics Edition, June 28, 2013. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/immigration/index.html. 15 Kim, Seung Min, and Carrie Budoff Brown. “The Death of Immigration Reform.” POLITICO, June 27, 2014. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374. 16 MacGillis, Alec. “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote (Published 2016).” The New York Times, September 15, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic- vote.html. 17 Kennedy, J. (1964). A nation of immigrants (Rev. and enl. ed. Introd. by Robert F. Kennedy. ed.). New York: Harper and Row. 18 Keeling, Drew (1999). “The Transport Revolution and Transatlantic Migration,” Economic History, 19, 39-74. 19 Hatton, T. J., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 20 Other common destinations during this period were Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. 21 Abramitzky, Ran and Leah Boustan (2017). “Immigration in American Economic History,” Journal of Economic Literature, 55(4), 1311-1345.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/28/immigrations-gang-of-8-who-are-they/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/28/immigrations-gang-of-8-who-are-they/
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/boehner-kills-senate-immigration-bill-2012-gops-dismay/355071/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/immigration/index.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
38
22 Immigration to the U.S. was instead restricted for Chinese and Japanese immigrants, following the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1908 Gentlemen’s Agreement, respectively. 23 Data on return migration rates was hard to find in a systematic way, but available estimates indicated that at least 30% of Southern and Eastern European immigrants did not permanently settle in the U.S. during the Age of Mass Migration. This number was probably as high as 50% for countries like Italy, during the first two decades of the twentieth century. (Source: Bandiera, Oriana, Imran Rasul, and Martina Viarengo (2013). “The Making of Modern America: Migratory Flows in the Age of Mass Migration,” Journal of Development Economics, 102, 23–47).
24 Greenwood, M. J. and Z. Ward (2015). “Immigration Quotas, World War I, and Emigrant Flows from the United States in the Early 20th Century,” Explorations in Economic History, 55, 76-96.
25 Cubberley, Ellwood P. (1909). Clanging Conceptions of Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, pp. 15-16. 26 Goldin, Claudia (1994). “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 27 Higham, John (1955). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925. Rutgers University Press. 28 The 1921 Emergency Quota Act had initially set the quota to 3%, fixing the “base” year to 1910. Yet, this provision was quickly changed so as to guarantee a more stringent control of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. (Source: Goldin, Claudia (1994). “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 29 See for example: Abramitzky, Ran, Philipp Ager, Leah Platt Boustan, Elior Cohen, and Casper W Hansen (2019), “The Effects of Immigration on The Economy: Lessons from The 1920s Border Closure,” NBER Working Paper 26536 and Goldin, Claudia (1994), “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 30 Massey, Douglas S. and Zai Liang (1989). “The Long-Term Consequences of a Temporary Worker Program: The US Bracero Experience,” Population Research and Policy Review, 8(3), 199-226. 31 Keely, Charles B. (1979). “The Development of U.S. Immigration Policy Since 1965,” Journal of International Affairs, 33 (2) 32 While this system was modified a number of times in subsequent years, family-based migration still accounted for at least 75% of total immigration to the U.S. in 2013. This differed substantially from immigration regimes of other countries like Canada or Australia, which instead had long relied on a “point-basis” mechanism that ranked prospective immigrants according to their skills, giving precedence to more educated foreign workers. (Source: Kandel, William A. (2018), “U.S. Family-based Immigration Policy,” Congressional Research Services Report). 33 The number of yearly immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. was gradually increased in subsequent amendments of the 1965 Act. As of 2019, the global quota was set at 620,000 (Source: Abramitzky, Ran and Leah Boustan (2017). “Immigration in American Economic History,” Journal of Economic Literature, 55(4), 1311-1345). 34 Yang, Jia Lynn. “The Surprising Origin of Our Modern Nation of Immigrants.” The New York Times, June 13, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/sunday-review/immigration-history-us.html. 35 Chishti, Muzaffar, Faye Hipsman, and Isabel Ball. “Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States.” migrationpolicy.org, October 5, 2015. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965- immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states. 36 President Johnson, Lyndon B. Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill, October 3, 1965, Liberty Island, New York, http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration. 37 Leiden, Warren R., and David L. Neal. “Highlights of the US Immigration Act of 1990,” Fordham International Law Journal, 14(1), 328-339. 38 Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press. 39 As of 2010, immigrants accounted for 16.4% of the American workforce with at least a college degree—up from just 7% in 1980. Also, one in three STEM workers and more than half of doctorate degree holders, respectively, were born abroad; one- fourth of U.S. entrepreneurs were first-generation immigrants, and 40% of founders of Fortune 500 companies were either first- or second-generation immigrants. (Source: Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press).
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
39
40 See Hanson, Gordon, and Chen Liu (2018). “High-Skilled Immigration and the Comparative Advantage of Foreign Born Workers across U.S. Occupation,” In High-Skilled Migration to the United States and Its Economic Consequences, edited by Gordon H. Hanson, William R. Kerr and Sarah Turner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 41 The acronym STEM stands for “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.” 42 Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press. 43 Porter, Michael E., Jan W. Rivkin, Mihir A. Desai, Katherine M. Gehl, William R. Kerr, and Manjari Raman (2019). “A Recovery Squandered: The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2019,” Harvard Business School. 44 Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107. 45 H1-B visas were introduced with the Immigration Act of 1990. Of the 85,000 visas, 20,000 were specifically reserved for individuals who graduated from U.S. institutions and who held a master’s degree or higher. Reflecting increasing demand for high-skilled labor, from 2014 onwards the demand for H1-B visas systematically exceeded by a factor of two or three the number of available permits. (Source: Ruiz, Neil G. “Key Facts about the U.S. H-1B Visa Program,” Pew Research Center, April 27, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-facts-about-the-u-s-h-1b-visa-program/. 46 Pethokoukis, James. “5 Questions for William Kerr on High-Skill Immigration and H1-B Visa Reform.” AEI Blog Post, January 11, 2019. https://www.aei.org/economics/how-the-us-can-compete-for-global-talent-a-short-read-qa-with-william- kerr/. 47 Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107. 48 Ibid. 49 Bier, David J., “Why the Legal Immigration System Is Broken: A Short List of Problems,” CATO institute blog , July 10, 2018, https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems. 50 The yearly cap for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere was set at 170,000, with no single country permitted to exceed 20,000. The Western Hemisphere was assigned a cap of 120,000. In 1976, the 20,000 country-specific maximum was applied to countries of the Western Hemisphere as well. In 1978, a single, worldwide quota finally replaced Hemisphere-specific caps. (Source: Chishti, Muzaffar, Hipsman, Faye, Ball, Isabel. “Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, October 15, 2015. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty- years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states). 51 Clemens, Michael A., Ethan G. Lewis, and Hannah M. Postel (2018). “Immigration Restrictions as Active Labor Market Policy: Evidence from the Mexican Bracero Exclusion.” American Economic Review, 108 (6): 1468-87. 52 Hanson, Gordon H. “Illegal migration from Mexico to the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 44, no. 4 (2006): 869- 924. 53 Of these, 4.9 million—or less than 50%—were from Mexico, whereas more than 5.5 million came from other countries. (Source: Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know- about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/). 54 Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about- illegal-immigration-from-mexico/. 55 The number of undocumented immigrants gradually declined since then, down to around 10.5 million in 2017. (Source: Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about- illegal-immigration-from-mexico/). 56 Gathmann, Christina (2008). “Effects of Enforcement on Illegal Markets: Evidence from Migrant Smuggling Along the Southwestern Border,” Journal of Public Economics, 92(10), 1926-1941. 57 The first version of IRCA, also known as the “Simpson-Mazzoli Act,” was introduced in 1982 by Senator Alan Simpson (R- WY) and Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY). 58 Chishti, Muzaffar, Doris Meissner, and Claire Bergeron. “At Its 25th Anniversary, IRCA’s Legacy Lives On.” migrationpolicy.org, November 16, 2011. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-25th-anniversary-ircas-legacy-lives.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

5 Questions for William Kerr on High-skill Immigration and H-1B Visa Reform

https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-25th-anniversary-ircas-legacy-lives

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
40
59 Plumer, Brad. “Congress Tried to Fix Immigration Back in 1986. Why Did It Fail?” Washington Post. The Washington Post, January 30, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve- immigration-why-didnt-it-work/. 60 Suro, Roberto. “1986 AMNESTY LAW IS SEEN as FAILING to SLOW ALIEN TIDE (Published 1989).” The New York Times, June 18, 1989. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/18/us/1986-amnesty-law-is-seen-as-failing-to-slow-alien- tide.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. 61 Plumer, Brad. “Congress Tried to Fix Immigration Back in 1986. Why Did It Fail?” Washington Post. The Washington Post, January 30, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve- immigration-why-didnt-it-work/. 62 “Grassley Floor Speech: Lessons from the 1986 Immigration Reform Debate | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.” Senate.gov. Chuck Grassley, February 4, 2013. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech- lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate. 63 To qualify for DACA, individuals had to be enrolled in high school or already have a degree (or, a GED), or have served in the U.S. military. DACA also excluded individuals with criminal histories. The DACA program was renewed in 2014, when it was also extended to cover additional undocumented immigrants, but President Trump announced a plan to suppress the program in 2017, putting at risk the deportation of more than 700,000 individuals who had been accepted to the program since 2012. (Source: Shoichet, Catherine E., Cullinane, Susannah, Kopan, Tal. “U.S. Immigration: DACA and Dreamers explained,” October 26, 2017, CNN Politics on the Web. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration- program/index.html). 64 Burwell, Sylvia M., Krueger, Alan, Sperling, Gene. “CBO Report: Immigration Reform Will Shrink the Deficit and Grow the Economy,” The White House Blog, June 18, 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/06/18/cbo-report- immigration-reform-will-shrink-deficit-and-grow-economy. 65 Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107. 66 Ibid. 67 David Nakamura. “A Path Clears for Immigration Bill: Last Big Hurdle Said To Be Overcome,” Washington Post, March 31, 2013. 68 Stanley-Becker, Tom, “Strange Bedfellows: Business, Labor, Guest Workers, and Immigration Reform in The United States, 1986-2013”. Harvey M. Applebaum ’59 Award, 2013, http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/applebaum_award/5. 69 Hooper, Kate, and Brian Salant (2018). “It’s Relative: A Crosscountry Comparison of Family Migration Policies and Flows,” Migration Policy Institute Issue Brief. 70 The U.S. framework to regulate legal immigration stood in contrast with the “point-based” systems used, among other countries, by the U.K. and Canada. According to the U.S. immigration regime, immigrants (temporarily) residing in the country for work or study-related motives could do so only if an employer or a university was willing (and able) to sponsor them. In point-based systems, immigrants were ranked according to their skills and education level. Usually, point-based systems were designed to give precedence to high-skilled immigrants. See the Migration Policy Institute at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states. In the U.S., family reunification was the single largest reason for admitting permanent immigrants. This stood in contrast with that of countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.K., where the share of immigrants permanently admitted because of family reunification motives was just below 30%. When scaling permanent admissions by country population, the U.S., Canada, and Australia all had similar rates of family-based admissions (around two migrants per 1,000 country residents). Yet, the U.S. granted permanent residency at significantly lower rates for economic migrants (0.5 migrants per 1,000, as opposed to 5.5 and 4.5 for Australia and Canada, respectively). Partly because of this feature of the U.S. immigration framework, hundreds of thousands of immigrants moving to the U.S. to work did so on a temporary basis. (Source: Hooper, Kate, and Brian Salant (2018). “It’s Relative: A Crosscountry Comparison of Family Migration Policies and Flows,” Migration Policy Institute Issue Brief). 71 Porter, Michael E., Jan W. Rivkin, Mihir A. Desai, Katherine M. Gehl, William R. Kerr, and Manjari Raman (2019). “A Recovery Squandered: The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2019,” Harvard Business School. 72 Bennet, Michael, “Donald Trump Should Look to Gang Of Eight for Immigration Reform,” The Denver Post on the Web, January 14, 2017, https://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/14/trump-should-look-to-gang-of-eight-for-immigration-reform/. 73 Brooks, J. Morris, “Debunking the Myths of Amnesty”, Floor Speech on July 16, 2013. From Press Release, July 17, 2013, https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/debunking-myths-amnesty. 74 Borjas, George J. (2014). Immigration Economics. Harvard University Press.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration-program/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration-program/index.html
http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/applebaum_award/5
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states

Donald Trump should look to Gang of Eight for immigration reform

https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/debunking-myths-amnesty

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
41
75 See Card, David (2005). “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?,” The Economic Journal, 115(507), F300-F323; and, Card, David (2009). “Immigration and Inequality,” American Economic Review, 99(2), 1-21. See also: Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn (2013). “Immigration and the Distribution of Incomes,” CESifo Working Paper 4561; and, Lewis, Ethan and Giovanni Peri (2015). “Immigration and the Economy of Cities and Regions,” Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5(10), 625-685. 76 Lewis, Ethan and Giovanni Peri (2015). “Immigration and the Economy of Cities and Regions,” Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5, 625-685. 77 United States Department of Labor (1996). “Legalized Population Survey Public Use File,” Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Washington, D.C. 78 Sen. Rubio, Marco, “Bipartisan Legislation Reforms Employment-Based H-1B and Student Visas, Increases Access To Employment-Based Green Cards, and Promotes STEM Education”, Floor Speech on January 29, 2013. From Press Release, https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/1/senators-rubio-hatch-klobuchar-coons-introduce-high-skilled- immigration-bill. 79 Seung, Min Kim, “CBO Brings Good News for Gang of Eight”, Politico, June 18, 2013, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/cbo-immigration-reform-will-reduce-deficit-093007 80 Rubin, Jennifer, “Conservative Leaders Slam Heritage for Shoddy Immigration Study”, The Washington Post on the Web, May 6, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for- shoddy-immmigration-study/. 81 Friedman, Milton (1978). “What Is America?”, University of Chicago Speech. Video available at https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/objects/57282/what-is-america. 82 Chetty, R., N. Hendren, P. Kline, and E. Saez (2014). “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623. 83 Peri, Giovanni “Immigrant Swan Song,” Finance and Development, March 2020, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf.
84 Chishti, Muzaffar and Hipsman, Faye “Republican Congressional Leaders Shelve Immigration Reform for 2014”, Migration Policy Institute, February 13,2014 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/republican-congressional-leaders-shelve- immigration-reform-2014. 85 Murray, Sara, “Paul and Rubio Clash on Likely 2016 Issue”, The Wall Street Journal on the Web, June 27, 2013 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578568172402764936. 86 MacGillis, Alec, “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote”, The New York Times Magazine, September 15, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html. 87 Sen. Grassley, Chuck, “Lessons from the 1986 Immigration Reform Debate”, Floor Speech on February 4, 2013. From Press Release, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform- debate. 88 Gomez, Alan, “‘Gang of Eight’ Immigration Bill Draws Mixed Reviews”, Usa Today News , April 16, 2013, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/.
89 Peralta, Eyder, “National Council Of La Raza Dubs Obama ‘Deporter-In-Chief’”, National Public Radio on the Web, March 4, 2014, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/04/285907255/national-council-of-la-raza-dubs-obama-deporter- in-chief?t=1628920065493. 90 Mascaro, Lisa and, Bennett, Brian, “Immigration Reform Bill Heads to Full Senate”, Los Angeles Times on the Web, May 21, 2013, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521- story.html. 91 Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration”, The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/. 92 Carrie, Dann, “Three Reasons Boehner Hit Pause on Immigration Reform”, NBC News, February 6, 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031. 93 Ortiz, Gabe, “Two Years After RNC Committed to Immigration Reform, House GOP Pursues Mass-Deportation Bill”, March 18, 2015, post on blog “America’s Voice.” https://americasvoice.org/blog/two-years-after-rnc-committed-to-immigration- reform-house-gop-pursues-mass-deportation-bill/.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/1/senators-rubio-hatch-klobuchar-coons-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/1/senators-rubio-hatch-klobuchar-coons-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/cbo-immigration-reform-will-reduce-deficit-093007
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/objects/57282/what-is-america
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578568172402764936

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031

Two Years After RNC Committed To Immigration Reform, House GOP Pursues Mass-Deportation Bill

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
42
94 Parker, Christopher, “The (Real) Reason Why the House Won’t Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, Brookings Blog, August 4, 2014, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/08/04/the-real-reason-why-the-house-wont-pass- comprehensive-immigration-reform/. 95 Martin, Jonathan, “Eric Cantor Defeated by David Brat, Tea Party Challenger, in G.O.P. Primary Upset”, The New York Times on the Web, June 10, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/politics/eric-cantor-loses-gop-primary.html. 96 Seung, Min Kim and, Carrie Budoff Brown, “The Death of Immigration Reform”, Politico, June 27, 2014, https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374. 97 MacGillis, Alec, “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote”, The New York Times Magazine, September 15, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html. 98 Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration,” The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678. 99 Obama, B. (2006). The Audacity of Hope: [Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream]. New York: Random House Audio. 100 Krugman, Paul, “The Road to Dubai”, The New York Times on the Web, March 31, 2006 https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/opinion/the-road-to-dubai.html. 101 Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration”, The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678. 102 Jardina, A. (2019). White Identity Politics. Cambridge University Press. 103 Mason, L. (2018). “Ideologues Without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 280-301; and Iyengar, S., Y. Lelkes, M. Levendusky, N. Malhotra, and S. J. Westwood (2019). “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States,” Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146. 104 Carrie, Dann, “Three Reasons Boehner Hit Pause on Immigration Reform”, NBC News, February 6, 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031. 105 Seung, Min Kim and, Carrie Budoff Brown, “The Death of Immigration Reform”, Politico, June 27, 2014, https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374. 106 Ehrenfreund, Max, “Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action”, The Washington Post on the Web November 20, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas- immigration-order/. 107 Shear, D. Michael, “For Obama, Executive Order on Immigration Would Be a Turnabout”, The New York Times on the Web, November 17, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would- reverse-long-held-stance.html. 108 See, among others: Dove, Travis, “Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”, The New York Times on the Web, September 1, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html and Montanaro, D., Kurtzleben , D. Horsley, S. Mccammon, S. and, Gonzales, R. “Fact Check: Donald Trump’s Speech On Immigration”, National Public Radio on the Web, August 31, 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/492096565/fact-check- donald-trumps-speech-on-immigration?t=1616704745955. 109 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/its-mainstream-anti-immigration-rhetoric-not-extreme-thats- shaping-american-politics/. 110 https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-06-03/americas-polarized-politics-may-be-here-stay. 111 Terje Solsvik and Camilla Knudsen, “‘Thanks, But No Thanks’—Norwegians Reject Trump’s Immigration Offer,” Reuters, January 12, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-norway/thanks-but-no-thanks-norwegians- reject-trumps-immigration-offer-idUSKBN1F11QK. 112 John F. Kennedy, among others, stressed the fact that the United States were a nation of immigrants in his book. See Kennedy, John F. (1964). A Nation of Immigrants. New York: Harper&Row Publisher. 113 Jordan, Miriam, “Is America a ‘Nation of Immigrants’? Immigration Agency Says No,” The New Yok Times on the Web, February 22, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/uscis-nation-of-immigrants.html?. 114 Immigration played an important role in shaping the racial profile of the Australian population. However, immigrants almost exclusively came from Europe, at least until 1973. At the turn of the twenty-first century, more than 90% of the Australian population was of European ancestry (mostly British and Irish). Since the late twentieth century, immigration from Asia gradually increased, and individuals with Asian ancestry came to account for around 5% of the population during the
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/08/04/the-real-reason-why-the-house-wont-pass-comprehensive-immigration-reform/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/08/04/the-real-reason-why-the-house-wont-pass-comprehensive-immigration-reform/

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/

https://www.npr.org/people/409798174/danielle-kurtzleben
https://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/492096565/fact-check-donald-trumps-speech-on-immigration?t=1616704745955
https://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/492096565/fact-check-donald-trumps-speech-on-immigration?t=1616704745955
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/its-mainstream-anti-immigration-rhetoric-not-extreme-thats-shaping-american-politics/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/its-mainstream-anti-immigration-rhetoric-not-extreme-thats-shaping-american-politics/
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-06-03/americas-polarized-politics-may-be-here-stay
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-norway/thanks-but-no-thanks-norwegians-reject-trumps-immigration-offer-idUSKBN1F11QK
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-norway/thanks-but-no-thanks-norwegians-reject-trumps-immigration-offer-idUSKBN1F11QK

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
43
first decade of the twenty-first century. At the time, 2.5% of the Australian population was composed of individuals with Aboriginal ancestry. See https://www.britannica.com/place/Australia/People#ref1248802. 115 As discussed above in the case, U.S. immigration policies were often designed to explicitly or implicitly preserve the ethnic and racial make-up of the (white) country. 116 Okazaki, Eri, “Is Japan Embracing Diversity?”, BBC News on the Web, February 25, 2020 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-is-japan-embracing-diversity. 117 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “White Australia Policy”. Encyclopedia Britannica, November 24, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/White-Australia-Policy. 118 Perlez, Jane, “Deep Fears Behind Australia’s Immigration Policy,” The New York Times on the Web, May 8, 2002, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/world/deep-fears-behind-australia-s-immigration-policy.html. 119 See a more detailed discussion at: Haupt, Rory and Wakerly, Liz, “Rating Australia—A Selection of Global Indexes“, Report published on the Website of the Australian Parliament, November 16, 2020 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Austral iaByNumbers#_Toc55831699. 120 Barder, Owen and, Krylová, Petra, “Which Countries Have the Best Migration Policies?”, post on the blog by the Center for Global Development, September 16, 2016, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies. 121 Cave, Damien, “In a Proudly Diverse Australia, White People Still Run Almost Everything,” The New York Times on the Web, April 10, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html. 122 Hunyor, Jonathon, “Australia’s Immigration Detention System Is Cruel and Damaging by Its Very Nature,” The Guardian on the Web, October 28, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/our-immigration-detention-system-is- cruel-and-damaging-by-its-very-nature. 123 BBC News, “Australia Ships Out Afghan Refugees,” BBC News on the Web, September 3, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1522723.stm. 124 OXFAM Australia Report, “Australia’s Pacific Solution Becomes a Pacific Nightmare,” August 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20080511180833/http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/still_drifting/. 125 Tavan, Gwenda, “Issues That Swung Elections: Tampa and the National Security Election Of 2001,” The Conversation, accessed on March 2, 2021, https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security- election-of-2001-115143. 126 Andrews, Hon Karen, MP, “Australia’s Borders Are Closed to Illegal Immigration: a video message from the new Minister for Home Affairs,” March 31, 2021 https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/. 127 O’Grady, Siobhán , “Children in Australia’s Offshore Migrant Center Are So Distraught, Some Have Attempted Suicide,” The Washington Post on the Web, September 20, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children- australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/. 128 Mridula Amin and Isabella Kwai, “The Nauru Experience: Zero-Tolerance Immigration and Suicidal Children,” The New York Times, November 5, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/world/australia/nauru-island-asylum-refugees- children-suicide.html#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%2012%20people%20have. 129 Siobhan O’Grady, “Children in Australia’s offshore migrant center are so distraught, some have attempted suicide,” The Washington Post, September 20, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore- migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/. 130 Ben Doherty, “A short history of Nauru, Australia’s dumping ground for refugees,” The Guardian, August 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/a-short-history-of-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees. 131 Damien Cave, “How Scott Morrison’s Boat Trophy Burst into Public View-and Why it Matters,” The New York Times, September 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/world/australia/scott-morrison-boat-trophy-refugees.html. 132 Giovanni Peri, “Immigrant Swan Song,” Finance and Development, March 2020, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf. 133 Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood- but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. 134 “Statistics Bureau Home Page.” www.stat.go.jp, www.stat.go.jp/english/index.html.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Australia/People#ref1248802
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-is-japan-embracing-diversity
https://www.britannica.com/event/White-Australia-Policy

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustraliaByNumbers#_Toc55831699
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustraliaByNumbers#_Toc55831699
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/our-immigration-detention-system-is-cruel-and-damaging-by-its-very-nature
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/our-immigration-detention-system-is-cruel-and-damaging-by-its-very-nature
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1522723.stm
https://web.archive.org/web/20080511180833/http:/www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/still_drifting/
https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security-election-of-2001-115143
https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security-election-of-2001-115143
https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/%0d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/%0d

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/a-short-history-of-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html
http://www.stat.go.jp/

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
44
135 David Green, “As Its Population Ages, Japan Quietly Turns to Immigration,” Migration Policy Institute, March 28, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration. 136 David Green, “As Its Population Ages, Japan Quietly Turns to Immigration,” Migration Policy Institute, March 28, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration. 137 Hiroko Tabuchi, “Japan Pays Foreign Workers to Go Home,” The New York Times, April 22, 2009, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigrant.html.
138 Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood- but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. 139 Simon Denyer and Akiko Kashiwagi, “Japan passes controversial new immigration bill to attract foreign workers,” The Washington Post, December 7, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-passes-controversial-new-immigration- bill-to-attract-foreign-workers/2018/12/07/a76d8420-f9f3-11e8-863a-8972120646e0_story.html. 140 Motoko Rich, “Bucking a Global Trend, Japan Seeks More Immigrants. Ambivalently.” The New York Times, December 7, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/world/asia/japan-parliament-foreign-workers.html. 141 Francisco Toro, “Japan is a Trumpian paradise of low immigration rates. It’s also a dying country,” The Washington Post, August 29, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/29/japan-is-trumpian-paradise-low-immigration- rates-its-also-dying-country/. 142 “Far Right Group Staging a Nationwide ‘Anti Immigrant’ Day,” GaijinPot Blog, October 14, 2018, https://blog.gaijinpot.com/far-right-group-staging-a-nationwide-anti-immigrant-day/. 143 Bryan Lufkin, “More seniors, more foreigners: How Japan is changing,” BBC, December 10, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181210-more-seniors-more-foreigners-how-japan-is-rapidly-changing. 144 Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood- but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. 145 For more details about immigration to the UAE see: https://gulfmigration.org/media/pubs/exno/GLMM_EN_2018_01.pdf.. See https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/QAT/qatar/net-migration#:~:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for and https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ARE/uae/net-migration#:~:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for for migration statistics about Qatar and the UAE respectively. 146 “Bahrain Immigration Statistics 1960-2021,” Macrotrends, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BHR/bahrain/immigration-statistics;; Saudi Arabia Immigration Statistics 1960- 2021, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SAU/saudi-arabia/immigration-statistics. 147 Longva, Anh Nga. 1999. “Keeping Migrant Workers in Check: The Kafala System in the Gulf.” Middle East Report 29 (211): 20–22. 148 Richard Morin, “Indentured Servitude in the Persian Gulf,” The New York Times, April 12, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/indentured-servitude-in-the-persian-gulf.html. 149 See Human Rights Watch. 2013. “South Asia: Protect Migrant Workers to Gulf Countries.” December 18. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/18/south-asia-protect -migrant-workers-gulf-countries. 150 Simone Foxman Bloomberg and Vivian Nereim, “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules Are an Issue in Persion Gulf,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian- gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html. 151 Laura Secorun, “The Perils of Housecleaning Abroad,” The New York Times, August 6, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/opinion/international-world/domestic-workers-middle-east.html. 152 Sara Hamdan, “Women Fuel Rise in Remittances from the Gulf,” The New York Times, June 27, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/world/middleeast/women-fuel-rise-in-remittances-from-the-gulf.html. 153 Simone Foxman Bloomberg and Vivian Nereim, “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules Are an Issue in Persion Gulf,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian- gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-passes-controversial-new-immigration-bill-to-attract-foreign-workers/2018/12/07/a76d8420-f9f3-11e8-863a-8972120646e0_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-passes-controversial-new-immigration-bill-to-attract-foreign-workers/2018/12/07/a76d8420-f9f3-11e8-863a-8972120646e0_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/29/japan-is-trumpian-paradise-low-immigration-rates-its-also-dying-country/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/29/japan-is-trumpian-paradise-low-immigration-rates-its-also-dying-country/

Far Right Group Staging a Nationwide “Anti Immigrant” Day

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181210-more-seniors-more-foreigners-how-japan-is-rapidly-changing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html.
https://gulfmigration.org/media/pubs/exno/GLMM_EN_2018_01.pdf.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/QAT/qatar/net-migration#:%7E:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ARE/uae/net-migration#:%7E:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BHR/bahrain/immigration-statistics;
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SAU/saudi-arabia/immigration-statistics.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/18/south-asia-protect%20-migrant-workers-gulf-countries
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html%0d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html%0d

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
45
154 Ibid. 155 “Reform the Kafala System,” Migrant Rights Org, https://www.migrant-rights.org/campaign/end-the-kafala-system/. 156 “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules are an Issue in Persian Gulf,” BloombergQuint, https://www.bloombergquint.com/quicktakes/why-labor-rules-are-such-a-big-issue-in-persian-gulf-quicktake-kf6u0xl0. 157 Barry Meier, “Labor Scrutiny for FIFA as a World Cup Rises in the Qatar Desert,” The New York Times, July 15, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/senate-fifa-inquiry-to-include-plight-of-construction- workers-in-qatar.html. 158 Peter Pattisson, Niamh McIntyre, Imran Mukhtar, Nihil Eapen, Imran Mukhtar, MdOwasim Uddin Bhuyan, Udwab Bhattarai, and Aanya Piyari, “Revealed: 6,500 Migrant Workers Have Died in Qatar Since World Cup Awarded,” The Guardian, 23 February, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar- fifa-world-cup-2022?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosworld&stream=world;; Kendall Baker and Dave Lawler, “Boycott Threats Loom Over Qatar World Cup and Beijing Olympics,” Axios, April 2, 2021, https://www.axios.com/boycott-qatar-world-cup-beijing-olympics-07276a8f-af8d-415c-84ea-aa95ea888175.html. 159 Richard Morin, “Indentured Servitude in the Persian Gulf,” The New York Times, April 12, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/indentured-servitude-in-the-persian-gulf.html. 160 Jones, M. (1992). American Immigration. University of Chicago Press. 161 Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press. 162 Ager, Philipp and Cinnirella, Francesco (2020). “Froebel’s Gifts: How The Kindergarten Movement Changed The American Family,” CEPR Working Paper 15146. 163 Faust, Albert Bernhardt (1916). The Germans in the United States. German University League. 164 Hirschman, Charles (2013). “The Contributions of Immigrants to American Culture,” Daedalus, 142(3), 26-47. 165 Giuliano, Paola and Marco Tabellini (2020). “The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-118. 166 Eli Watkins, “George W. Bush: ‘Immigration is a blessing and a strength,” CNN Politics, March 18, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/george-bush-naturalization-ceremony/index.html. 167 The poem the “New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus (1883) is displayed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. 168 Andrew Van Dam, “Norway was Once the Kind of Country Trump Might’ve Spit On. Now its People Don’t Even Want to Come Here,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/12/trump-wants-more-immigrants-from-norway-theres-a- reason-they-arent-coming/. 169 Michael Barbaro, “Highlights of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech and Mexico Trip,” The New York Times, August 31, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico.html. 170 Josh Dawsey, “Trump Derides Protections for Immigrants from ‘Shithole’ Countries,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office- meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?undefined=&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1. 171 For rising political backlash in response to immigration during the early twentieth century see, for instance, Tabellini, Marco (2020). “Gifts of the Immigrants, Woes of the Natives: Lessons from the Age of Mass Migration,” Review of Economic Studies, 87(1), 454-486. 172 Neli Esipova, Anita Pugliese, and Julie Ray, “Europeans Most Negative Toward Immigration,” Gallup, October 16, 2015, https://news.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx. 173 Karla Adam and William Booth, “Immigration Worries Drove the Brexit Vote. Then Attitudes Changed,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/immigration-worries-drove-the-brexit-vote- then-attitudes-changed/2018/11/16/c216b6a2-bcdb-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html. 174 “Europe and right wing nationalism: A country by country guide,” BBC News, November 13, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006. 175 Brook Larmer, “South Korea’s Most Dangerous Enemy: Demographics,” The New York Times, February 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/south-koreas-most-dangerous-enemy-demographics.html.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.migrant-rights.org/campaign/end-the-kafala-system/
https://www.bloombergquint.com/quicktakes/why-labor-rules-are-such-a-big-issue-in-persian-gulf-quicktake-kf6u0xl0

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosworld&stream=world;
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosworld&stream=world;
https://www.axios.com/boycott-qatar-world-cup-beijing-olympics-07276a8f-af8d-415c-84ea-aa95ea888175.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/indentured-servitude-in-the-persian-gulf.html.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/george-bush-naturalization-ceremony/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/12/trump-wants-more-immigrants-from-norway-theres-a-reason-they-arent-coming/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/12/trump-wants-more-immigrants-from-norway-theres-a-reason-they-arent-coming/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?undefined=&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?undefined=&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1
https://news.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/immigration-worries-drove-the-brexit-vote-then-attitudes-changed/2018/11/16/c216b6a2-bcdb-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/immigration-worries-drove-the-brexit-vote-then-attitudes-changed/2018/11/16/c216b6a2-bcdb-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006

721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
46
176 Alesina, Alberto and Marco Tabellini (2020). “The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?” Harvard Business School Working Paper 21-069. 177 Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713. 178 Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., and Worchel, S. (1979). “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” Organizational identity: A reader, 56(65), 9780203505984-16. 179 Stephan, W. G., and Stephan, C. W. (2000). “An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice,” Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 23-45. 180 Phillip Connor, “More than nine in ten people worldwide live in countries with travel restrictions amid COVID-19,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/more-than-nine-in-ten-people-worldwide-live-in- countries-with-travel-restrictions-amid-covid-19/. 181 Katie Rogers, “Trump Plans to Suspend Immigration to U.S.,” The New York Times, April 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/us/politics/trump-immigration.html. 182 Gerry Boyle, “Coronavirus Used to Stoke Anti-immigration Fears,” Colby, http://www.colby.edu/magazine/coronavirus- as-threat-and-vindication/. 183 Neli Esipova, Anita Pugliere, and Julie Ray, “More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate if They Could,” Gallup, December 10, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx.
For the exclusive use of L. ROBINSON, 2024.
This document is authorized for use only by LATHESHIA ROBINSON in Copy of PA 565: Advanced Policy Analysis taught by JOHN GRUMMEL, Upper Iowa University from Mar 2024 to Aug 2024.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/more-than-nine-in-ten-people-worldwide-live-in-countries-with-travel-restrictions-amid-covid-19/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/more-than-nine-in-ten-people-worldwide-live-in-countries-with-travel-restrictions-amid-covid-19/

http://www.colby.edu/magazine/coronavirus-as-threat-and-vindication/
http://www.colby.edu/magazine/coronavirus-as-threat-and-vindication/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx

Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era

Immigration in American History

The Age of Mass Migration
The Immigration Acts of the 1920s
From Country-Specific Quotas to Family Reunification

Cracks in the System

An Outmoded Immigration Framework
Undocumented Immigration: Problems and (Failed) Solutions

The Gang of Eight and the Immigration Reform

Designing a Path to Citizenship
Reforming the Framework for Legal Immigration

The Immigration Debate and the Reform Failure

Labor Market Competition
The Fiscal Impact
Border Security

Immigration: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
Immigration and Nativism Around the World

Australia
Japan
Arab Gulf Countries

Conclusion
Exhibit 1Summary of Provisions Included in the 2013 Senate Bill
Exhibit 3Number of Immigrants Entering the U.S. (in thousands)
Exhibit 2Immigrants as a Percent of the U.S. Population
Exhibit 4Foreign-Born Share of the U.S. Population over Time
Exhibit 5Number of Undocumented Immigrants Residing in the U.S. (in millions)
Exhibit 6Summary of Provisions Included in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
Exhibit 7The (Failed) History of the DREAM Act
Exhibit 8Distribution of Immigrants by Skill, Across U.S. Local Labor Market (2013)
Exhibit 9Immigration and Polarization in the U.S. Congress and Senate
Exhibit 10Percentage of Respondents (by Party) Who Agree That “Immigrants Today Strengthen Our Country Because of Their Hard Work and Talents”
Exhibit 10Percentage of Respondents (by Party) Who Agree That “Immigrants Today Strengthen Our Country Because of Their Hard Work and Talents”
Exhibit 11Growing affective polarization
Exhibit 12Immigration policies and executive orders during Donald Trump’s Presidency
Exhibit 13Racial and ethnic diversity across countries
Exhibit 14Migration-friendly development index (Center for Global Development)
Exhibit 15Australian government’s advertisement of Operation Sovereign Borders
Exhibit 16Total and foreign born population in the UAE over time
Endnotes

9-721-022 REV: August 17, 2021
721-022 Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era 721-022
Marco Tabellini Reforming the U.S. Immigration Regime: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
In June 2013, a comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration regime seemed finally on its way, after a decades-long impasse that had left the regulatory framework practically unchanged since 1990. On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act with a comfortable 68-to-32 majority.[endnoteRef:1] The bill was drafted by the “Gang of Eight,” a bipartisan group of four Democratic and four Republican Senators. “The bill . . . would be the most substantial change in immigration law since the 1986 reform,” wrote the Los Angeles Times.[endnoteRef:2] According to the New York Times, it would “fix chronic problems in the system” by both legalizing the status of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. and reorienting future immigration towards a more merit or skill-based point system.[endnoteRef:3] [1: Rachel Weiner, “Immigration’s Gang of 8: Who are they?” January 28, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/28/immigrations-gang-of-8-who-are-they/, accessed November 2020.] [2: Mascaro, Lisa, and Brian Bennett. “Immigration Reform Bill Heads to Full Senate.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2013. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html.] [3: Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 16, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html.]
“The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” exulted Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—the leader of the Gang of Eight. “I consider this an astounding success,” echoed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another member of the bipartisan group.[endnoteRef:4] There was also optimism about the bill because it included a series of balances to appease the two parties and to reconcile the conflicting positions of employers and labor unions (see Exhibit 1). First, a clear path to the legalization of the status of undocumented immigrants (a key aspect for Democrats) was balanced by corresponding efforts to increase border security (the top priority for Republicans). Second, both to protect American unskilled workers and to encourage high-skilled immigration (especially in the STEM sector, as demanded by firms), the bill increased the weight given to personal skills. At the same time, the focus on “family-based” immigration, which had long characterized the U.S. system, was at least partly left in place. [4: POLITICO, and Seung Min Kim. “Senate Passes Immigration Bill.” POLITICO, June 27, 2013. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530.]
The accomplishment by the Gang of Eight was praised by both Republicans and Democrats as well as by external actors. “The heart of immigration reform is fixing the legal immigration system so it works for America,” claimed the President of ImmigrationWorks, Tamar Jacoby. [endnoteRef:5],[endnoteRef:6] The organization of young, undocumented immigrants, United We Dream, expressed its support for the legislation, noting that it represented a “major victory for the movement.” [endnoteRef:7] Many also expressed their hopes because the bipartisan agreement was reached at a time of hyperpolarization in American politics.[endnoteRef:8] The bill might have marked the beginning of a new era, characterized by cooperation—rather than opposition—between parties. Agreeing over a common path, especially on a controversial issue like immigration, was not only of practical, but also symbolic, importance. [5: Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all.] [6: ImmigrationWorks was a group that represented the interests of small businesses.] [7: Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all.] [8: For polarization in American society and in American politics see, among others, Abramowitz, Alan I. (2018). The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press; and Klein, Ezra. (2020). Why We’re Polarized. Profile Books.]
However, the bill needed to go to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration. Despite the widespread optimism about the future of the bill, the Gang of Eight received fierce critiques from multiple fronts. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) lamented that the goals of those who crafted the bill were “not coterminous with, they’re not in harmony with, the nation as a whole.”[endnoteRef:9] Some worried about the impact that the bill would have had on wages and employment of native workers, namely those born in the United States, in particular the more vulnerable ones at the bottom of the income distribution. “Everything in this bill is about bringing in more people to compete for American jobs,” commented Roy Beck, an opponent of unrestricted immigration.[endnoteRef:10] [9: O’Keefe, Ed. “Senate Approves Comprehensive Immigration Bill.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, June 27, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html.] [10: Gomez, Alan. “‘Gang of Eight’ Immigration Bill Draws Mixed Reviews.” USA TODAY. USATODAY, April 16, 2013. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/.]
Others feared that the bill would have opened the doors to undocumented immigration. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) warned that the proposed law would legalize “almost everyone in the country illegally before the border is secured.” “This of course will encourage even more illegal immigration,” he concluded.[endnoteRef:11] House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) belittled the enthusiasm among the Gang of Eight and its supporters and repeatedly declared that the House had “no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.”[endnoteRef:12] After Senate approval of the bill and cognizant of the atmosphere prevailing in the House, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) noted that the Gang of Eight would “stand ready to sit down and negotiate with you.”[endnoteRef:13] Yet, the margin for a discussion and a compromise was slim. “Apparently some haven’t gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,”[endnoteRef:14] reiterated John Boehner. [11: Preston, Julia. “Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration (Published 2013).” The New York Times, April 13, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/senators-set-to-unveil-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all.] [12: Bump, Philip. “The Atlantic.” The Atlantic. theatlantic, November 13, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/boehner-kills-senate-immigration-bill-2012-gops-dismay/355071/.] [13: O’Keefe, Ed. “Senate Approves Comprehensive Immigration Bill.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, June 27, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-approve-massive-immigration-bill/2013/06/27/87168096-df32-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html .] [14: Silverleib, Alan. “Senate Passes Sweeping Immigration Bill,” CNN Politics Edition, June 28, 2013. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/immigration/index.html.]
One year later, on June 27, 2014, the situation had not improved. In fact, amid stark gridlock, the bill approved in the Senate had never been considered for a discussion in the House. The mood among the Gang of Eight and supporters of immigration reform was very different than just a few months before. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the most fervent supporters of the bill, expressed his discontent: “It’s one of the most frustrating moments that I’ve had . . . [it] is incredibly disappointing not only to me personally but to millions of people across the country.”[endnoteRef:15] It was clear by then that immigration reform had failed. [15: Kim, Seung Min, and Carrie Budoff Brown. “The Death of Immigration Reform.” POLITICO, June 27, 2014. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374.]
“It’s so bizarre when you have the business community, organized labor, the faith community, law enforcement, you name it, everybody’s for it. Come on—how can you have something everybody’s for and not get it passed?” asked Representative John Yarmuth (D-KY), one of the members of the Gang of Eight.[endnoteRef:16] These puzzles were not new to policymakers, in the U.S. or elsewhere. Indeed, the question of immigration was one of the world’s most divisive political issues in the early twenty-first century. But why was immigration so vexing, what were the stakes for individual countries, and what might it entail for the future of globalization as such? [16: MacGillis, Alec. “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote (Published 2016).” The New York Times, September 15, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html.]
Immigration in American History
The Age of Mass Migration
As John F. Kennedy noted, the U.S. is “a nation of immigrants.”[endnoteRef:17] Since 1850, more than 80 million immigrants moved to America, and, as of 2018, 13.7% of its population was foreign-born (see Exhibit 2). Until the mid-nineteenth century, because of the high cost of crossing the Atlantic, immigration to the U.S. remained very low. However, since the 1850s, a series of factors—including changes in shipping technology, growing reliance on migrant networks, and rising incomes—triggered an unprecedented increase in emigration from Europe.[endnoteRef:18] Between 1850 and 1920, during what historians refer to as the Age of Mass Migration, more than 50 million migrants left Europe, with 30 million of them settling in the U.S.[endnoteRef:19],[endnoteRef:20] [17: Kennedy, J. (1964). A nation of immigrants (Rev. and enl. ed. Introd. by Robert F. Kennedy. ed.). New York: Harper and Row.] [18: Keeling, Drew (1999). “The Transport Revolution and Transatlantic Migration,” Economic History, 19, 39-74.] [19: Hatton, T. J., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.] [20: Other common destinations during this period were Canada, Brazil, and Argentina.]
At the time, no barrier existed to immigration to the U.S. from Europe.[endnoteRef:21],[endnoteRef:22] The yearly number of immigrants rose from less than one per 1,000 residents in 1820 to an average of 15 per 1,000 residents between 1850 and 1920 (see Exhibit 3). During this period, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population increased from less than 10% to 14%, and one in five individuals in the U.S. labor force was foreign-born—a number seven percentage points higher than in 2018, when 13% of the individuals in the labor force were immigrants. The composition of European immigrants changed substantially over the period. In 1850, more than 90% of immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe—particularly from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. However, after 1890, the share of Southern and Eastern European immigrants started to rise, and by 1920, the stock of migrants from these regions was as high as 40% (see Exhibit 4). [21: Abramitzky, Ran and Leah Boustan (2017). “Immigration in American Economic History,” Journal of Economic Literature, 55(4), 1311-1345.] [22: Immigration to the U.S. was instead restricted for Chinese and Japanese immigrants, following the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1908 Gentlemen’s Agreement, respectively.]
The “new” immigrants—as the Italians, the Poles, and the Russians were typically referred to—were younger, less educated, more likely to be male, and less likely to settle permanently in the U.S.[endnoteRef:23] Also, they were culturally “more distant” from the original Anglo-Saxon settlers. For these reasons, they were often viewed with great skepticism. In 1896, the first President of the American Economic Association and third President of MIT, Francis A. Walker, stated that the U.S. had to “[protect] the American Standard of living, and the quality of American citizenship from degradation through the tumultuous access of vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry from the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe.”[endnoteRef:24] Stanford Professor (and future Dean) Ellwood P. Cubberley expressed a similar view in 1909, describing Southern and Eastern European immigrants as “illiterate, docile, and lacking in self-reliance and initiative.” Cubberley also worried that immigration would “dilute tremendously our national stock, and corrupt our civic life.”[endnoteRef:25] [23: Data on return migration rates was hard to find in a systematic way, but available estimates indicated that at least 30% of Southern and Eastern European immigrants did not permanently settle in the U.S. during the Age of Mass Migration. This number was probably as high as 50% for countries like Italy, during the first two decades of the twentieth century. (Source: Bandiera, Oriana, Imran Rasul, and Martina Viarengo (2013). “The Making of Modern America: Migratory Flows in the Age of Mass Migration,” Journal of Development Economics, 102, 23–47).] [24: Greenwood, M. J. and Z. Ward (2015). “Immigration Quotas, World War I, and Emigrant Flows from the United States in the Early 20th Century,” Explorations in Economic History, 55, 76-96.] [25: Cubberley, Ellwood P. (1909). Clanging Conceptions of Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, pp. 15-16. ]
The Immigration Acts of the 1920s
In 1907, amid growing concerns about immigration, U.S. Congress established the Dillingham Commission to evaluate the impact of immigrants on American society and the economy. In 1911, after four years of investigations, the commission advocated for several measures to limit the inflow of immigrants, especially from “new” sending countries. Following the advice of the Dillingham Commission, in 1917, Congress introduced a literacy test that required all immigrants to be able to read and write. The literacy test was the precursor of much more far-reaching legislation. In 1921 and 1924, Congress approved a set of stringent country-specific quotas that drastically reduced the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. in any given year.[endnoteRef:26] This was an unprecedented move, which caused the number of annual immigrants to plummet from over one million in 1910 to a mere 150,000 in 1924. [26: Goldin, Claudia (1994). “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]
The 1924 National Origins Acts introduced quotas designed to exclude immigrants from “undesirable countries” from Eastern and Southern Europe.[endnoteRef:27] Entry slots were specific to each country of origin and were set to 2% of the foreign-born stock from each national group residing in the U.S. as of 1890.[endnoteRef:28] Because very few immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were living in the U.S. in 1890, the quotas disproportionately affected immigration from these regions. On the other hand, immigration from “old” sending countries (e.g., Germany, Norway, and Sweden) was much less restricted. [27: Higham, John (1955). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925. Rutgers University Press.] [28: The 1921 Emergency Quota Act had initially set the quota to 3%, fixing the “base” year to 1910. Yet, this provision was quickly changed so as to guarantee a more stringent control of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. (Source: Goldin, Claudia (1994). “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press).]
The Immigration Acts of the 1920s had a long-lasting impact. From its record high of 14% in 1920, the immigrant share of the U.S. population declined to just 5% in 1970. Between 1924 and 1965, only a few exceptions interrupted a period of very limited immigration.[endnoteRef:29] Among these, the most notable ones included the Jewish and the Eastern European refugees during World War II and in 1953, respectively, and the Bracero program that allowed four million Mexican agricultural laborers to work temporarily in some southern states.[endnoteRef:30] [29: See for example: Abramitzky, Ran, Philipp Ager, Leah Platt Boustan, Elior Cohen, and Casper W Hansen (2019), “The Effects of Immigration on The Economy: Lessons from The 1920s Border Closure,” NBER Working Paper 26536 and Goldin, Claudia (1994), “The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921,” in The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, edited by Claudia Goldin and Gary D. Libecap. 223-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.] [30: Massey, Douglas S. and Zai Liang (1989). “The Long-Term Consequences of a Temporary Worker Program: The US Bracero Experience,” Population Research and Policy Review, 8(3), 199-226.]
From Country-Specific Quotas to Family Reunification
For a comprehensive change in its immigration policy, America had to wait until 1965, when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bill eliminated the country-specific quotas, increased the annual immigration cap to 270,000, and introduced a system of preferences for individuals with specific skills and who were sponsored by their employers.[endnoteRef:31] The single most important provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act was to give precedence to immigration for “family reunification” motives. This implied that “employment-based” migration remained significantly less important than “family-based” migration.[endnoteRef:32] [31: Keely, Charles B. (1979). “The Development of U.S. Immigration Policy Since 1965,” Journal of International Affairs, 33 (2)] [32: While this system was modified a number of times in subsequent years, family-based migration still accounted for at least 75% of total immigration to the U.S. in 2013. This differed substantially from immigration regimes of other countries like Canada or Australia, which instead had long relied on a “point-basis” mechanism that ranked prospective immigrants according to their skills, giving precedence to more educated foreign workers. (Source: Kandel, William A. (2018), “U.S. Family-based Immigration Policy,” Congressional Research Services Report). ]
The effects of the 1965 Immigration Act were dramatic. The share of the U.S. population born abroad increased to almost 14% by 2010—a level not seen since 1920 (see Exhibit 2).[endnoteRef:33] Furthermore, the immigrant population of the U.S. grew increasingly diverse: until 1970, more than 80% of the foreign-born stock originated from either Europe or Oceania and Canada; but this number fell to less than 20% in the following 40 years (see Exhibit 4). As of 2010, more than 50% of foreign-born individuals living in the U.S. came from Central and South America, and another 30% from Asia. [33: The number of yearly immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. was gradually increased in subsequent amendments of the 1965 Act. As of 2019, the global quota was set at 620,000 (Source: Abramitzky, Ran and Leah Boustan (2017). “Immigration in American Economic History,” Journal of Economic Literature, 55(4), 1311-1345). ]
Despite its ultimate results, the original intent of the 1965 Act was not to increase the diversity of the U.S. population. In fact, it was precisely the opposite. Democratic legislator and Harvard Law School graduate Michael Feighan—one of the architects of the Immigration and Nationality Act—was convinced that, by eliminating the quota system, the (white) racial makeup of the U.S. would have remained intact. This would have been possible, according to Feighan, “if the country prioritized entry for people with family already in the United States . . . Since most Americans [in 1965] were white, their family members abroad would also be white.”[endnoteRef:34] Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the floor manager of the bill, expressed a similar view, stating that the Immigration and Nationality Act “will not upset the ethnicity mix of our society.”[endnoteRef:35] Along similar lines, upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared that even though the Act “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American nation . . . [it] is not a revolutionary bill.”[endnoteRef:36] [34: Yang, Jia Lynn. “The Surprising Origin of Our Modern Nation of Immigrants.” The New York Times, June 13, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/sunday-review/immigration-history-us.html.] [35: Chishti, Muzaffar, Faye Hipsman, and Isabel Ball. “Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States.” migrationpolicy.org, October 5, 2015. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states.] [36: President Johnson, Lyndon B. Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill, October 3, 1965, Liberty Island, New York, http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration. ]

The Immigration and Nationality Act was amended and modified several times since 1965—most importantly with the 1990 Immigration Act, which increased the quota cap to 675,000 entries per year, revised and expanded the “employer based” visa categories, and altered several aspects of the exclusion and deportation procedures.[endnoteRef:37] However, its key elements remained unchanged, and the 1965 Act still governed the main aspects of American immigration policy when the Gang of Eight introduced its immigration bill in 2013. [37: Leiden, Warren R., and David L. Neal. “Highlights of the US Immigration Act of 1990,” Fordham International Law Journal, 14(1), 328-339.]
Cracks in the System
An Outmoded Immigration Framework
Proponents of a comprehensive reform highlighted the need to renew the framework regulating immigration of foreign-born workers and students, which, using the words of Harvard Professor William Kerr, were “a global gift” for the U.S.[endnoteRef:38],[endnoteRef:39] Indeed, almost 20% of the American workforce with at least a college degree during the 2010s was born abroad—up from just 7% in 1980.[endnoteRef:40] Similarly, about one in three STEM workers and more than half of doctorate degree holders, respectively, were born abroad.[endnoteRef:41],[endnoteRef:42] Yet, with growing global competition for talent, an outmoded immigration framework was putting at risk the tremendous advantage that the U.S. economy had historically enjoyed. [38: Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press.] [39: As of 2010, immigrants accounted for 16.4% of the American workforce with at least a college degree—up from just 7% in 1980. Also, one in three STEM workers and more than half of doctorate degree holders, respectively, were born abroad; one-fourth of U.S. entrepreneurs were first-generation immigrants, and 40% of founders of Fortune 500 companies were either first- or second-generation immigrants. (Source: Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press).] [40: See Hanson, Gordon, and Chen Liu (2018). “High-Skilled Immigration and the Comparative Advantage of Foreign Born Workers across U.S. Occupation,” In High-Skilled Migration to the United States and Its Economic Consequences, edited by Gordon H. Hanson, William R. Kerr and Sarah Turner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.] [41: The acronym STEM stands for “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.”] [42: Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press.]
Aware of these challenges, several U.S. firms complained that the prevailing system was hindering their “ability to recruit foreign workers.” This was true especially in the most dynamic sectors of the economy, such as the high-tech industry, where demand for high skilled immigrants vastly exceeded supply. According to a survey conducted by Harvard Business School, respondents (including business leaders) were in favor of increasing employment-based immigration by more than 300% relative to the current level, reducing the precedence given to family-based migration.[endnoteRef:43] Shifting away from family-based migration would have increased the weight given to skills and education of prospective immigrants in the selection process. [43: Porter, Michael E., Jan W. Rivkin, Mihir A. Desai, Katherine M. Gehl, William R. Kerr, and Manjari Raman (2019). “A Recovery Squandered: The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2019,” Harvard Business School.]
Many economists also stressed the inefficiency of the existing system, which capped the number of high skilled immigrant visas (the H1-B) at a mere 85,000 per year.[endnoteRef:44],[endnoteRef:45] Since firms’ demand regularly exceeded the number of available permits, the U.S. government randomized them among potential applicants. “That is a very crude way of selecting,” noted William Kerr. “If you are Microsoft, you’re usually putting several thousand applications in so… to get about a third of your applications approved, but you don’t even get to pick which third of your candidates you most want to employ,” continued professor Kerr.[endnoteRef:46] [44: Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107.] [45: H1-B visas were introduced with the Immigration Act of 1990. Of the 85,000 visas, 20,000 were specifically reserved for individuals who graduated from U.S. institutions and who held a master’s degree or higher. Reflecting increasing demand for high-skilled labor, from 2014 onwards the demand for H1-B visas systematically exceeded by a factor of two or three the number of available permits. (Source: Ruiz, Neil G. “Key Facts about the U.S. H-1B Visa Program,” Pew Research Center, April 27, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-facts-about-the-u-s-h-1b-visa-program/.] [46: Pethokoukis, James. “5 Questions for William Kerr on High-Skill Immigration and H1-B Visa Reform.” AEI Blog Post, January 11, 2019. https://www.aei.org/economics/how-the-us-can-compete-for-global-talent-a-short-read-qa-with-william-kerr/. ]
Inefficiencies in the legal immigration framework were not confined to the H1-B visa system. In fact, even though one fourth of U.S. entrepreneurs were first generation immigrants, and 40% of founders of Fortune 500 companies were either first or second generation immigrants, no visa for entrepreneurs existed.[endnoteRef:47] This legal void represented an obstacle for talented individuals who wanted to move to the United States, and, indirectly, imposed severe costs to American born workers. Indeed, researchers “estimated the lower-bound of the job creation impacts of a start-up visa at nearly 500,000 new jobs over ten years.”[endnoteRef:48] [47: Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107.] [48: Ibid.]

Finally, the visa system was based on the premise that workers would have lived in the United States temporarily. In order to qualify for most visas, an immigrant had to show that he had “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”[endnoteRef:49] Such temporary arrangement meant that firms were unable to make long-term plans, and may have been reluctant to invest in their workers’ human capital and skills, cognizant that such investment might have not paid off, had workers not been granted permanent residency. Moreover, workers lived under significant uncertainty, with both economic and psychological negative consequences. High skilled, talented individuals might have found a job in another country. Yet, this may have been harder, or even impossible, for unskilled workers, who were forced to return to their home country once their visa expired, unless they decided to stay in the U.S. without legal documents. [49: Bier, David J., “Why the Legal Immigration System Is Broken: A Short List of Problems,” CATO institute blog , July 10, 2018, https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems. ]
Undocumented Immigration: Problems and (Failed) Solutions
While many demanded reforms to increase the efficiency of the American immigration system, the most salient issue since the early 1990s had become that of undocumented immigration. This was a major unintended consequence of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because the bill had introduced numeric caps to immigrants from each country, including (for the first time) those in the Western Hemisphere.[endnoteRef:50] In 1964, U.S. Congress also terminated the Bracero program, which had been used by U.S. employers since 1942 to recruit temporary agricultural workers from Mexico. The termination of the Bracero program, coupled with the introduction of limits to legal immigration from Mexico, gave rise to undocumented immigration, as many Bracero workers kept crossing the border to perform the same jobs they had been doing until 1964.[endnoteRef:51] [50: The yearly cap for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere was set at 170,000, with no single country permitted to exceed 20,000. The Western Hemisphere was assigned a cap of 120,000. In 1976, the 20,000 country-specific maximum was applied to countries of the Western Hemisphere as well. In 1978, a single, worldwide quota finally replaced Hemisphere-specific caps. (Source: Chishti, Muzaffar, Hipsman, Faye, Ball, Isabel. “Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, October 15, 2015. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states). ] [51: Clemens, Michael A., Ethan G. Lewis, and Hannah M. Postel (2018). “Immigration Restrictions as Active Labor Market Policy: Evidence from the Mexican Bracero Exclusion.” American Economic Review, 108 (6): 1468-87.]
The number of undocumented immigrants increased steadily until the mid-2000s when, according to the best available estimates, about 650,000 undocumented immigrants were entering the U.S. each year.[endnoteRef:52],[endnoteRef:53] Pew Research Center statistics indicated that the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. reached a record 12.2 million right before the Great Recession of 2007–2009 (see Exhibit 5).[endnoteRef:54],[endnoteRef:55] [52: Hanson, Gordon H. “Illegal migration from Mexico to the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 44, no. 4 (2006): 869-924.] [53: Of these, 4.9 million—or less than 50%—were from Mexico, whereas more than 5.5 million came from other countries. (Source: Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/).] [54: Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/.] [55: The number of undocumented immigrants gradually declined since then, down to around 10.5 million in 2017. (Source: Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “What We Know about Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 28, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/).]
Since the 1980s, policymakers had tried to respond to the issues posed by unauthorized immigration. On the one hand, resources devoted to policing and border control increased more than ten times between 1980 and 2000.[endnoteRef:56] Moreover, the U.S. government increased penalties for employers hiring undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, multiple attempts were made to legalize the status of individuals who permanently resided but who entered the U.S. without authorization. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 took a first, important step in this direction, legalizing the status of most unauthorized immigrants who had entered the U.S. before 1982. [56: Gathmann, Christina (2008). “Effects of Enforcement on Illegal Markets: Evidence from Migrant Smuggling Along the Southwestern Border,” Journal of Public Economics, 92(10), 1926-1941.]
IRCA, signed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, built and expanded on the provisions included in the legislative process initiated almost 10 years before under the presidency of Jimmy Carter in 1977.[endnoteRef:57] The bill was based on three key components, also referred to as the “three legs of the stool” by its sponsors: increasing border security, cracking down on employers hiring unauthorized immigrants, and legalizing the status of foreign-born individuals who had entered the country illegally (see Exhibit 6). The effects of IRCA were dramatic: under the new law, almost 2.7 million undocumented immigrants obtained legal status. Newly legalized immigrants were also able to sponsor their relatives, thereby leading to a surge in family-based immigration during the 1990s.[endnoteRef:58] [57: The first version of IRCA, also known as the “Simpson-Mazzoli Act,” was introduced in 1982 by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY).] [58: Chishti, Muzaffar, Doris Meissner, and Claire Bergeron. “At Its 25th Anniversary, IRCA’s Legacy Lives On.” migrationpolicy.org, November 16, 2011. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-25th-anniversary-ircas-legacy-lives.]
Many argued that, despite its intents, IRCA was a failure. Because of a five-year gap between the date of the law’s enactment and the qualifying date, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants remained in the country without legal status. “Everyone assumed they would just leave, that the new employer restrictions would push them out,” noted Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute.[endnoteRef:59] Yet, that did not happen. In fact, the legal loophole increased incentives for more migrants to move to the U.S. illegally, hoping for future amnesties.[endnoteRef:60] In addition, “Congress didn’t foresee at the time that employers would want more immigrants in the years ahead,” continued Doris Meissner, and the law did not provide a framework to manage larger employment-based migration flows.[endnoteRef:61] [59: Plumer, Brad. “Congress Tried to Fix Immigration Back in 1986. Why Did It Fail?” Washington Post. The Washington Post, January 30, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/.] [60: Suro, Roberto. “1986 AMNESTY LAW IS SEEN as FAILING to SLOW ALIEN TIDE (Published 1989).” The New York Times, June 18, 1989. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/18/us/1986-amnesty-law-is-seen-as-failing-to-slow-alien-tide.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.] [61: Plumer, Brad. “Congress Tried to Fix Immigration Back in 1986. Why Did It Fail?” Washington Post. The Washington Post, January 30, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/.]
Ultimately, while IRCA was designed to be a “one-time deal” to avoid “a continuing series of amnesties” as noted by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), it was followed by a record increase in the number of immigrants living without authorization in the U.S.[endnoteRef:62] The issue of undocumented immigration thus remained unsettled. [62: “Grassley Floor Speech: Lessons from the 1986 Immigration Reform Debate | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.” Senate.gov. Chuck Grassley, February 4, 2013. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate.]
In 2001, U.S. Congress advanced a bipartisan proposal to introduce the DREAM Act with the goal of creating a path to legal status and permanent residency for undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors. The Act was reintroduced many times since then, but never became law (see Exhibit 7). After 11 years of impasse, in 2012, President Barack Obama signed an executive order introducing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which offered a two-year, renewable deferral from deportation for individuals who entered the U.S. as children without citizenship or legal residency status. The program, which had stringent eligibility criteria, not only protected individuals from deportation, but also guaranteed some basic benefits—such as work permits and the possibility of obtaining employer-sponsored health insurance—that facilitated immigrants’ integration into American society.[endnoteRef:63] [63: To qualify for DACA, individuals had to be enrolled in high school or already have a degree (or, a GED), or have served in the U.S. military. DACA also excluded individuals with criminal histories. The DACA program was renewed in 2014, when it was also extended to cover additional undocumented immigrants, but President Trump announced a plan to suppress the program in 2017, putting at risk the deportation of more than 700,000 individuals who had been accepted to the program since 2012. (Source: Shoichet, Catherine E., Cullinane, Susannah, Kopan, Tal. “U.S. Immigration: DACA and Dreamers explained,” October 26, 2017, CNN Politics on the Web. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration-program/index.html). ]
The Gang of Eight and the Immigration Reform
Designing a Path to Citizenship
The first goal of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 was to design a path for the legalization of the undocumented immigrant population residing in the U.S. Individuals who had entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011, were eligible to apply for the change to their legal status (provided that several conditions were met) upon payment of a penalty and an application fee as well as “back taxes” (see Exhibit 1). The Gang of Eight stressed both the humanitarian aspect and the potential economic benefits deriving from the legalization of undocumented immigrants.
Days before the Senate approval, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report stating that the immigration bill would have decreased the federal deficit by almost $900 billion over the subsequent 20 years.[endnoteRef:64] The estimates from the CBO reflected an increase in tax revenues due to both higher payroll and income taxes and a larger labor force. However, the CBO remained silent about the potential redistributional effects on the native worker population, especially among those employed in jobs more likely to attract newly legalized immigrants. [64: Burwell, Sylvia M., Krueger, Alan, Sperling, Gene. “CBO Report: Immigration Reform Will Shrink the Deficit and Grow the Economy,” The White House Blog, June 18, 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/06/18/cbo-report-immigration-reform-will-shrink-deficit-and-grow-economy.]
Legalizing the status of undocumented immigrants was a top priority for the Democrats, who were held accountable by their (ethnically, racially, and culturally) diverse constituencies. The majority of Republicans agreed that repatriation of the undocumented foreign-born population was both logistically unfeasible and morally unjustifiable. However, they deemed an increase in border security a necessary condition for the legalization process to occur. This was key, according to the Republican bloc, to prevent the rise of illegal immigration, likely encouraged by expectations of similar amnesties to occur again in the future.
Together with more stringent border security, the 2013 bill also envisaged tighter employment regulation that required employers and firms to electronically verify the legal status of their workers. The logic of this requirement was clear. If employers were prevented from hiring undocumented immigrants—and if the cost of doing so illegally was high enough—the economic benefits for prospective (undocumented) immigrants would have fallen. Coupled with higher costs (in the form of higher risks of crossing the border illegally), lower expected gains would have discouraged (illegal) immigration in the first place. These provisions, the Gang of Eight hoped, would have both facilitated the integration of existing undocumented immigrants (as demanded by Democrats) and increased the security of the U.S. border (as sought by Republicans).
Reforming the Framework for Legal Immigration
Besides fixing the issue of undocumented immigration, the 2013 immigration reform aimed to increase the importance of personal skills and talent in the process of legal immigration. The Gang of Eight planned to expand the high-skilled immigrant visa category (the H1-B) from 85,000 to 180,000, adjusting it flexibly depending on yearly fluctuations in labor demand.[endnoteRef:65] This provision would have benefitted the U.S. economy in at least two ways. First, flexible—rather than fixed—quotas would have allowed firms to get access to more (foreign) labor during periods of economic growth, while at the same time shielding American workers from immigrants’ competition during recessions. In this way, the economy would have adjusted to shocks more flexibly, thereby smoothing economic cycles. Second, the higher cap of the H1-B visa would have favored the inflow of talent, in turn promoting economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship.[endnoteRef:66] [65: Kerr, William R. (2020). “Global Talent and US Immigration Policy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-107.] [66: Ibid.]
To reach an agreement between labor unions and employers, members of the Gang of Eight exerted a great deal of effort to mediate between the divergent positions of the two groups. “This issue has always been the deal-breaker on immigration reform,” noted Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “But not this time,” he proudly declared after the negotiations around the Senate bill.[endnoteRef:67] Labor unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreed on a reform that touched upon four points. First, to satisfy labor unions’ requests, “American workers should have a first crack at available jobs.” Second, to meet firms’ demands, “laws permit businesses to hire foreign workers without having to go through a cumbersome and inefficient process.” Third, combining the previous two elements, the bill would have designed “a mechanism that responds to the needs of business in a market-driven way, while also fully protecting the wages and working conditions of U.S. and immigrant workers.” Finally, the reform introduced “a new kind of worker visa program that does not keep all workers in a permanent temporary status, provides labor mobility in a way that still gives American workers a first shot at available jobs, and that automatically adjusts as the American economy expands and contracts.”[endnoteRef:68] [67: David Nakamura. “A Path Clears for Immigration Bill: Last Big Hurdle Said To Be Overcome,” Washington Post, March 31, 2013.] [68: Stanley-Becker, Tom, “Strange Bedfellows: Business, Labor, Guest Workers, and Immigration Reform in The United States, 1986-2013”. Harvey M. Applebaum ’59 Award, 2013, http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/applebaum_award/5. ]
The immigration bill also planned for a gradual but steady shift away from visas allotted to family members of immigrants already in the country and towards those granted based on merit and skills.[endnoteRef:69],[endnoteRef:70] Some viewed this as in contrast with the founding principles of America. Yet, the majority of both business leaders and voters recognized that a step in this direction would have made it easier for firms to operate while at the same time allocating resources (and talent in particular) more efficiently.[endnoteRef:71] [69: Hooper, Kate, and Brian Salant (2018). “It’s Relative: A Crosscountry Comparison of Family Migration Policies and Flows,” Migration Policy Institute Issue Brief.] [70: The U.S. framework to regulate legal immigration stood in contrast with the “point-based” systems used, among other countries, by the U.K. and Canada. According to the U.S. immigration regime, immigrants (temporarily) residing in the country for work or study-related motives could do so only if an employer or a university was willing (and able) to sponsor them. In point-based systems, immigrants were ranked according to their skills and education level. Usually, point-based systems were designed to give precedence to high-skilled immigrants. See the Migration Policy Institute at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states. In the U.S., family reunification was the single largest reason for admitting permanent immigrants. This stood in contrast with that of countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.K., where the share of immigrants permanently admitted because of family reunification motives was just below 30%. When scaling permanent admissions by country population, the U.S., Canada, and Australia all had similar rates of family-based admissions (around two migrants per 1,000 country residents). Yet, the U.S. granted permanent residency at significantly lower rates for economic migrants (0.5 migrants per 1,000, as opposed to 5.5 and 4.5 for Australia and Canada, respectively). Partly because of this feature of the U.S. immigration framework, hundreds of thousands of immigrants moving to the U.S. to work did so on a temporary basis. (Source: Hooper, Kate, and Brian Salant (2018). “It’s Relative: A Crosscountry Comparison of Family Migration Policies and Flows,” Migration Policy Institute Issue Brief). ] [71: Porter, Michael E., Jan W. Rivkin, Mihir A. Desai, Katherine M. Gehl, William R. Kerr, and Manjari Raman (2019). “A Recovery Squandered: The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2019,” Harvard Business School.]
The Immigration Debate and the Reform Failure
Several commentators welcomed the 2013 immigration reform as a milestone that “would have secured our borders; bolstered internal security; better protected American workers; and strengthened our economy” while at the same time showing that “principled and compassionate problem-solving is still possible in Washington.”[endnoteRef:72] Yet, despite such enthusiastic reactions and its success in the Senate, the proposal from the Gang of Eight received fierce attacks, both from the left and from the right. [72: Bennet, Michael, “Donald Trump Should Look to Gang Of Eight for Immigration Reform,” The Denver Post on the Web, January 14, 2017, https://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/14/trump-should-look-to-gang-of-eight-for-immigration-reform/. ]
Labor Market Competition
A minority within the Republican Party complained that, even though U.S. firms would have benefitted from the reform, the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants would have increased labor market competition for American unskilled workers, depressing their wages and hindering their employment prospects. Congress member Mo Brooks (R-AL) worried that 11 million immigrants would have suddenly competed “for jobs when Americans are having such a difficult time in this economy not only getting jobs, but getting quality jobs.”[endnoteRef:73] These concerns resonated with the skeptical views about immigration expressed by Harvard economist George Borjas, who argued that “immigration has consequences, and these consequences generally imply that some people lose while others benefit.”[endnoteRef:74] However, they were in contrast with research from UC Berkeley economist David Card, who documented that immigration had not been responsible for the rise in income inequality in the U.S. since the 1960s.[endnoteRef:75] Findings in Card’s work were consistent with those obtained by Giovanni Peri, professor of economics at UC Davis, who concluded that “the average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions.”[endnoteRef:76] [73: Brooks, J. Morris, “Debunking the Myths of Amnesty”, Floor Speech on July 16, 2013. From Press Release, July 17, 2013, https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/debunking-myths-amnesty. ] [74: Borjas, George J. (2014). Immigration Economics. Harvard University Press.] [75: See Card, David (2005). “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?,” The Economic Journal, 115(507), F300-F323; and, Card, David (2009). “Immigration and Inequality,” American Economic Review, 99(2), 1-21. See also: Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn (2013). “Immigration and the Distribution of Incomes,” CESifo Working Paper 4561; and, Lewis, Ethan and Giovanni Peri (2015). “Immigration and the Economy of Cities and Regions,” Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5(10), 625-685.] [76: Lewis, Ethan and Giovanni Peri (2015). “Immigration and the Economy of Cities and Regions,” Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5, 625-685. ]
Supporters of the bill noted that most undocumented immigrants were already working, though illegally, in the U.S. Thus, legalizing their status would have not changed the supply of labor available to employers. Moreover—the pro-reform bloc argued—hiring an undocumented immigrant did not require paying for his or her insurance, and employers’ bargaining power was stronger when the worker was illegally living in the country. As a result, the wage paid to undocumented immigrants was lower than that paid to legal ones. A 1996 study from the U.S. Department of Labor found that wages of the 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants who were granted legal status with the 1986 reform increased by more than 15% within five years after the legalization took place.[endnoteRef:77] If anything, legalizing the status of foreign workers, by making their labor more expensive, would have increased firms’ appetite for native workers. [77: United States Department of Labor (1996). “Legalized Population Survey Public Use File,” Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Washington, D.C.]
Shifting away from family reunification and increasing the weight given to skills in the admission process might have further reduced competition for unskilled natives, favoring instead the inflow of talented individuals whose skills were in high demand among employers. According to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the bill “[will] help us attract more highly skilled workers in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, which will help our unemployed, underemployed or underpaid American workers find better jobs.”[endnoteRef:78] [78: Sen. Rubio, Marco, “Bipartisan Legislation Reforms Employment-Based H-1B and Student Visas, Increases Access To Employment-Based Green Cards, and Promotes STEM Education”, Floor Speech on January 29, 2013. From Press Release, https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/1/senators-rubio-hatch-klobuchar-coons-introduce-high-skilled-immigration-bill. ]
The Fiscal Impact
Many hoped that the 2013 bill, and the legalization of undocumented immigrants in particular, would have produced a large net fiscal surplus because of increased tax revenues. Citing the estimates released by the CBO, Republican Marco Rubio (FL) said the report “confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayer.”[endnoteRef:79] Those in favor of the bill were also hopeful that, as had happened after the previous amnesty in 1986, the income of migrants would have quickly increased, thereby lowering their reliance on public programs. [79: Seung, Min Kim, “CBO Brings Good News for Gang of Eight”, Politico, June 18, 2013, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/cbo-immigration-reform-will-reduce-deficit-093007 ]
Not everyone was convinced, however. Opponents of the bill noted that the undocumented immigrants who would have been legalized were on average poorer and more likely than natives to be on welfare. This would have increased pressure on local public services, including hospitals and public schools. Payments through Medicaid and food stamps would have also increased, and the surge in tax revenues was unlikely to compensate for such increased costs. “The problem is the growth of government programs, the perverse incentive effects that those programs create, and the failures of our education system,” wrote the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.[endnoteRef:80] Interestingly, similar arguments had been made already in 1977 by Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs, it is another thing to have free immigration to welfare, and you cannot have both” had declared Friedman during a televised address, concluding that “if you have a welfare state… [free immigration] would mean a reduction of everybody to the same uniform level.”[endnoteRef:81] [80: Rubin, Jennifer, “Conservative Leaders Slam Heritage for Shoddy Immigration Study”, The Washington Post on the Web, May 6, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/. ] [81: Friedman, Milton (1978). “What Is America?”, University of Chicago Speech. Video available at https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/objects/57282/what-is-america. ]
Critics were also concerned about the unequal distribution of fiscal costs across the country, caused by the clustering of immigrants with different skills and educational levels (see Exhibit 8). Some locations, such as the Silicon Valley or the greater Boston area, might benefit from an influx of high-skilled immigrants who not only pay higher taxes (because of their high income) but are also less likely to consume public goods and to be on welfare. On the contrary, areas with many low-skilled and formerly undocumented immigrants would experience a sudden spike in public goods consumption, potentially crowding out locals. These dynamics would amplify the gap in economic opportunities between areas in the U.S.[endnoteRef:82] [82: Chetty, R., N. Hendren, P. Kline, and E. Saez (2014). “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623.]
This view was challenged by those who instead argued that even unskilled immigrants would have produced a fiscal surplus, in part by acting as population stabilizers in an aging society like the United States. Since immigrants were, on average, younger than local residents, they had the potential to help “reduce population decline, keep the size of the labor force from shrinking, improve age dependency ratios, and produce positive fiscal gains,” explained Giovanni Peri.[endnoteRef:83] [83: Peri, Giovanni “Immigrant Swan Song,” Finance and Development, March 2020, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf. ]
Border Security
Differences over economic issues represented an important factor behind the failure of the 2013 immigration reform. Yet, the key fault line was the clash over border security and the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Republicans—even those who favored the bill—viewed increased measures to prevent future undocumented immigration as a necessary condition for the 2013 reform. “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it’ll be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes,” stated John Boehner (R-OH). [endnoteRef:84] Rand Paul (R-KY) made clear that he would have voted “no” on the bill because he did not believe “it met his standard of securing the border before steps to legalize immigrants begin.”[endnoteRef:85] [84: Chishti, Muzaffar and Hipsman, Faye “Republican Congressional Leaders Shelve Immigration Reform for 2014”, Migration Policy Institute, February 13,2014 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/republican-congressional-leaders-shelve-immigration-reform-2014.] [85: Murray, Sara, “Paul and Rubio Clash on Likely 2016 Issue”, The Wall Street Journal on the Web, June 27, 2013 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578568172402764936. ]
“The principle is you cannot make the mistake of Reagan,” stated Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID).[endnoteRef:86] “Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But, it’s clear that philosophy doesn’t work” added Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who instead believed that “without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.”[endnoteRef:87] [86: MacGillis, Alec, “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote”, The New York Times Magazine, September 15, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html. ] [87: Sen. Grassley, Chuck, “Lessons from the 1986 Immigration Reform Debate”, Floor Speech on February 4, 2013. From Press Release, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-lessons-1986-immigration-reform-debate. ]
The Gang of Eight, however, was confident that doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and installing 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the U.S.–Mexico border would have been a sufficient deterrent for migrants entering the country illegally. Furthermore, the 2013 reform required all employers to electronically verify their workers’ legal status. These measures were designed by taking stock of the failure of the 1986 reform. On the one hand, the bill would have increased the cost of crossing the border. On the other, it would have made employers accountable for the legal status of their workers.
If critics on the right deemed the bill as too lax on border security, those on the left attacked it for imposing excessively tough measures on immigrants’ lives. Bishop Ricardo McClain, pastor of the Church of God Restoration in Kissimmee, Florida, and a member of the PICO National Network, noted that “the proposed legislation falls short by placing unnecessary obstacles and delays in the path to citizenship and could unfairly exclude some of the 11 million aspiring Americans.”[endnoteRef:88] Even though President Barack Obama was not involved in the development of the bill, he was held accountable for its success—in particular, for the legalization of undocumented immigrants—by the large Hispanic voting bloc that had been pivotal to his election in 2012. Lack of progress had generated so much frustration among the Latino community that Janet Murguia, the President of the National Council of La Raza, labeled Obama the “deporter-in-chief,” pushing him to unilaterally stop repatriations of undocumented immigrants.[endnoteRef:89] Pressured by the most liberal fringe in their coalition, Democratic members of the Gang of Eight made it clear that “if we don’t have a path to citizenship, there is no reform.”[endnoteRef:90] [88: Gomez, Alan, “‘Gang of Eight’ Immigration Bill Draws Mixed Reviews”, Usa Today News , April 16, 2013, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/16/senate-immigration-bill-reactions/2087899/. ] [89: Peralta, Eyder, “National Council Of La Raza Dubs Obama ‘Deporter-In-Chief’”, National Public Radio on the Web, March 4, 2014, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/04/285907255/national-council-of-la-raza-dubs-obama-deporter-in-chief?t=1628920065493.] [90: Mascaro, Lisa and, Bennett, Brian, “Immigration Reform Bill Heads to Full Senate”, Los Angeles Times on the Web, May 21, 2013, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-may-21-la-na-pn-immigration-reform-to-senate-floor-20130521-story.html. ]
Immigration: A Polarizing Issue in a Polarized Era
“Immigration is an intensely painful topic . . . because it places basic principles in conflict” noted Nobel Prize winner in Economics and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.[endnoteRef:91] In American history, immigration and political polarization co-moved almost perfectly (see Exhibit 9): periods of high polarization and political divisions were also characterized by high immigration. The debate about the 2013 Senate bill was no exception: even on a proposal crafted by a bipartisan commission, which was supported in a Democratic-dominated Senate by as many as 14 GOP members, legislators were unable to reach an agreement. Even within the Democratic Party, many were unwilling to fully support the bill. In the end, the long-awaited immigration reform failed. [91: Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration”, The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/. ]
Democrats blamed the Republican Party for pulling out of the negotiations and refusing to bring the Senate bill to the floor of the House. Some speculated that this was a political tactic to avoid immigration reform during a midterm election year.[endnoteRef:92] After the defeat suffered by Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential election, many within the Republican Party were convinced that catering to the vote of the growing Hispanic population was essential to making the GOP competitive. Commenting on the election results, in March 2013, the Republican National Convention stated that the Party had to “embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”[endnoteRef:93] These and similar positions had initially given hope to Democrats that comprehensive immigration reform was possible. [92: Carrie, Dann, “Three Reasons Boehner Hit Pause on Immigration Reform”, NBC News, February 6, 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031. ] [93: Ortiz, Gabe, “Two Years After RNC Committed to Immigration Reform, House GOP Pursues Mass-Deportation Bill”, March 18, 2015, post on blog “America’s Voice.” https://americasvoice.org/blog/two-years-after-rnc-committed-to-immigration-reform-house-gop-pursues-mass-deportation-bill/. ]
However, by the summer of 2013, the long-run political benefits, which may have manifested only in 2016 or 2020, were more than offset by the short-run costs that many Republican Representatives may have paid in the upcoming midterm elections. “97% of Republican House districts in the 113th Congress have white majorities,” noted a report from the Brookings Institution, suggesting that the political incentives to stand for the reform within the GOP were low.[endnoteRef:94] The surprise defeat of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in the Republican primaries further exacerbated concerns about the political costs of supporting the immigration bill.[endnoteRef:95] Even though many forces were responsible for Cantor’s loss, “the role of immigration reform quickly hardened into conventional wisdom: his support of incremental immigration measures hurt him, and as a result, other Republicans wouldn’t want to touch the issue.”[endnoteRef:96] [94: Parker, Christopher, “The (Real) Reason Why the House Won’t Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, Brookings Blog, August 4, 2014, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/08/04/the-real-reason-why-the-house-wont-pass-comprehensive-immigration-reform/. ] [95: Martin, Jonathan, “Eric Cantor Defeated by David Brat, Tea Party Challenger, in G.O.P. Primary Upset”, The New York Times on the Web, June 10, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/politics/eric-cantor-loses-gop-primary.html. ] [96: Seung, Min Kim and, Carrie Budoff Brown, “The Death of Immigration Reform”, Politico, June 27, 2014, https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374. ]
On the other hand, Republicans accused Democrats of insisting on crafting a Senate bill, relegating the GOP-controlled House—initially open to comprehensive, bipartisan reform—to a secondary role. Democrats thought that “the path to immigration reform ran not through the House but through the Senate.”[endnoteRef:97] Even though Republicans manifested their interest in developing a common plan to reform the immigration regime in the House, Democrats wanted to pass a liberal bill to meet the demands of their increasingly progressive constituency. This reflected a deeper trend in the policy platform of the Democratic Party. Until the early 2000s, noted Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, “Democrats were divided on immigration.”[endnoteRef:98] [97: MacGillis, Alec, “How Republicans Lost Their Best Shot at the Hispanic Vote”, The New York Times Magazine, September 15, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/magazine/how-republicans-lost-their-best-shot-at-the-hispanic-vote.html. ] [98: Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration,” The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678. ]
At the turn of the twenty-first century, Democrats were in favor of immigration; yet most of them were reluctant to embrace it without reservations, and were aware of the potential costs that an influx of immigrants might have generated. In 2006, partly reflecting his disappointment with the lack of immigrants’ assimilation, Barack Obama remarked that “when I am forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”[endnoteRef:99] In that same year, Paul Krugman, who was notorious for his liberal views on immigration, wrote that immigrants reduced natives’ wages and were a net fiscal burden for the country. Thus, Krugman concluded, “we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”[endnoteRef:100] All of these concerns had disappeared by 2013. Everyone in the Democratic Party “agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” The “combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs,” commented Peter Beinart in the Atlantic.[endnoteRef:101] [99: Obama, B. (2006). The Audacity of Hope: [Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream]. New York: Random House Audio. ] [100: Krugman, Paul, “The Road to Dubai”, The New York Times on the Web, March 31, 2006 https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/opinion/the-road-to-dubai.html.] [101: Beinart, Peter, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration”, The Atlantic, August 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678. ]
The radicalization of the Democrats’ position reduced the scope for a balanced discussion with Republicans, who instead moved in the other direction, trying to cater to the support of working-class white voters, worried about demographic change even more than the economic consequences of immigration.[endnoteRef:102] The diverging trends between parties were mirrored by similar dynamics among voters (see Exhibit 10). Increasing polarization was accompanied by lack of mutual trust among both voters and legislators. Survey data revealed that supporters of either party were holding increasingly negative views towards members of the other group—a phenomenon known as “affective polarization” (see Exhibit 11).[endnoteRef:103] GOP supporters and their elected officials were skeptical about President Obama’s ability to enforce the reform, especially concerning border security.[endnoteRef:104] According to Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Republican legislators could be divided into three groups: “[those] who were eager to move on reform . . . ; lawmakers who would never vote for an overhaul; and a wide middle swath who might have been open to the leadership’s plan but said their deep distrust of Obama was a significant barrier.”[endnoteRef:105] [102: Jardina, A. (2019). White Identity Politics. Cambridge University Press.] [103: Mason, L. (2018). “Ideologues Without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 280-301; and Iyengar, S., Y. Lelkes, M. Levendusky, N. Malhotra, and S. J. Westwood (2019). “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States,” Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146.] [104: Carrie, Dann, “Three Reasons Boehner Hit Pause on Immigration Reform”, NBC News, February 6, 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/three-reasons-boehner-hit-pause-immigration-reform-n24031. ] [105: Seung, Min Kim and, Carrie Budoff Brown, “The Death of Immigration Reform”, Politico, June 27, 2014, https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374. ]
Talks and negotiations continued, but no further agreement was possible. The only way for the U.S. to make progress on immigration policy was to rely on executive orders. In November 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive action that granted temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants and protected them from deportation for an indefinite time.[endnoteRef:106] Even though this measure offered temporary relief to immigrants, it did not permanently settle their status. Neither did it address more fundamental issues with the immigration regime of the U.S. “Getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation . . . does extend beyond my legal authorities,” Obama answered to those demanding more fundamental changes. He continued, “There are certain things I cannot do.”[endnoteRef:107] [106: Ehrenfreund, Max, “Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action”, The Washington Post on the Web November 20, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/. ] [107: Shear, D. Michael, “For Obama, Executive Order on Immigration Would Be a Turnabout”, The New York Times on the Web, November 17, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html. ]
The immigration debate loomed large also during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, when Donald Trump made several controversial statements questioning the quality of immigrants moving to America, especially those coming from non-European countries.[endnoteRef:108] His aggressive and often charged rhetoric further increased the partisan divide over immigration.[endnoteRef:109] This, in turn, spilled over to several other issues, fueling broader social and cultural polarization.[endnoteRef:110] Following his election, Trump immediately enacted a series of executive orders to restrict immigration, in particular from countries that were considered “culturally far” (see Exhibit 12). In 2018, he made headlines asking “why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re s***thole countries… we should have more people from Norway.”[endnoteRef:111] [108: See, among others: Dove, Travis, “Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”, The New York Times on the Web, September 1, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html and Montanaro, D., Kurtzleben , D. Horsley, S. Mccammon, S. and, Gonzales, R. “Fact Check: Donald Trump’s Speech On Immigration”, National Public Radio on the Web, August 31, 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/492096565/fact-check-donald-trumps-speech-on-immigration?t=1616704745955. ] [109: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/its-mainstream-anti-immigration-rhetoric-not-extreme-thats-shaping-american-politics/. ] [110: https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-06-03/americas-polarized-politics-may-be-here-stay. ] [111: Terje Solsvik and Camilla Knudsen, “‘Thanks, But No Thanks’—Norwegians Reject Trump’s Immigration Offer,” Reuters, January 12, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-norway/thanks-but-no-thanks-norwegians-reject-trumps-immigration-offer-idUSKBN1F11QK. ]
Many domestic and international observers wondered whether America had repudiated its roots as a “nation of immigrants”,[endnoteRef:112] becoming a stronghold of staunch anti-immigrant supporters. Partly reflecting President Trump’s stance on immigration, in 2018, the U.S.C.I.S. – the agency granting citizenship to foreign born individuals – changed its mission statement from guaranteeing “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” to “guide us in the years ahead.” According to the former U.S.C.I.S. director, León Rodríguez, the move represented “a particularly sad turn of history.” America should question if “this is really the country we want to be,” added Mr. Rodríguez.[endnoteRef:113] [112: John F. Kennedy, among others, stressed the fact that the United States were a nation of immigrants in his book. See Kennedy, John F. (1964). A Nation of Immigrants. New York: Harper&Row Publisher.] [113: Jordan, Miriam, “Is America a ‘Nation of Immigrants’? Immigration Agency Says No,” The New Yok Times on the Web, February 22, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/uscis-nation-of-immigrants.html?. ]
Immigration and Nativism Around the World
Despite the rising support for nativism, the U.S. remained quite exceptional from a global perspective: compared to most other rich countries around the world as well as to most stable democracies, the U.S. was more ethnically and racially heterogeneous (see Exhibit 13), likely because of its history of relatively open immigration. Most European countries were significantly more homogenous than the U.S., and the same was true for Japan, South Korea, and Australia.[endnoteRef:114] Although the lack of diversity in these countries was influenced by several factors, they shared a purposeful use of immigration policies to preserve their racial and ethnic homogeneities.[endnoteRef:115] [114: Immigration played an important role in shaping the racial profile of the Australian population. However, immigrants almost exclusively came from Europe, at least until 1973. At the turn of the twenty-first century, more than 90% of the Australian population was of European ancestry (mostly British and Irish). Since the late twentieth century, immigration from Asia gradually increased, and individuals with Asian ancestry came to account for around 5% of the population during the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the time, 2.5% of the Australian population was composed of individuals with Aboriginal ancestry. See https://www.britannica.com/place/Australia/People#ref1248802. ] [115: As discussed above in the case, U.S. immigration policies were often designed to explicitly or implicitly preserve the ethnic and racial make-up of the (white) country.]
In Japan, sakoku – an isolationist policy introduced in 1641 that remained in place for more than 200 years – restricted both immigration and trade in order to preserve and foster a “homogeneous society,” characterized by “one civilization, one language, one culture, and one race.”[endnoteRef:116] Mirroring the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in the United States in 1882 (later repealed with the 1965 Immigration Act), Australia introduced the Immigration Restriction Act, also known as White Australia policy, in 1901. The bill prevented any non-European immigrant from entering the country and contributed to “the development of a racially insulated white society.”[endnoteRef:117] Even though the legislation was amended and made less stringent, especially after 1973, its cultural legacy lasted for a long time.[endnoteRef:118] At the other end of the spectrum, in countries with high levels of immigration, foreign-born workers often faced precarious conditions, with limited – if any – protection. Moreover, when the foreign born population exceeded the native born one, as in many Gulf countries, immigrants rarely had access to social welfare and other forms of public goods (from health care to schooling to training programs), not to mention a road to actual citizenship. [116: Okazaki, Eri, “Is Japan Embracing Diversity?”, BBC News on the Web, February 25, 2020 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-is-japan-embracing-diversity. ] [117: Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “White Australia Policy”. Encyclopedia Britannica, November 24, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/White-Australia-Policy. ] [118: Perlez, Jane, “Deep Fears Behind Australia’s Immigration Policy,” The New York Times on the Web, May 8, 2002, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/world/deep-fears-behind-australia-s-immigration-policy.html.]
Australia
As of 2020, Australia ranked 8th in the world, with a score of 97 (out of 100), for its protection of human rights according to Freedom House.[endnoteRef:119] Its point-based immigration system was considered a model to attract high skilled workers and select the most talented individuals around the world. According to the Center for Global Development, Australia had one of “the most development-friendly migration polic[ies]” in 2016, ranking third (out of 27 developed countries) on the basis of an index that combined multiple criteria (see Exhibit 14).[endnoteRef:120] Yet, some observers highlighted stark contradictions between these positive assessments and Australia’s policies implemented to preserve its ethnic and racial make-up.[endnoteRef:121] Australia was criticized, in particular, for the practices used to deal with the migration of refugees and forcibly displaced individuals. The system was defined “cruel and damaging by its very nature” by Jonathon Hunyor, CEO of the non-profit organization and charity Public Interest Advocacy Center.[endnoteRef:122] 2001 marked a key turning point for Australian immigration policy. At the end of August of that year, the Australian government denied permission to the freighter MV Tampa, which had rescued more than 400 refugees at sea, to enter Australian water. When the Tampa disregarded the order – hoping to guarantee care for the exhausted and malnourished refugees, many of which were in critical conditions – the Australian government dispatched the Special Air Service (SAS) troops to prevent the ship from approaching the coast any further.[endnoteRef:123] After long negotiations, the asylum seekers were sent to the independent country of Nauru, where they were interned in two detention camps at Australian expense, and only some of them ever reached their destination (more than 3 years later).[endnoteRef:124] [119: See a more detailed discussion at: Haupt, Rory and Wakerly, Liz, “Rating Australia—A Selection of Global Indexes“, Report published on the Website of the Australian Parliament, November 16, 2020 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustraliaByNumbers#_Toc55831699. ] [120: Barder, Owen and, Krylová, Petra, “Which Countries Have the Best Migration Policies?”, post on the blog by the Center for Global Development, September 16, 2016, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies. ] [121: Cave, Damien, “In a Proudly Diverse Australia, White People Still Run Almost Everything,” The New York Times on the Web, April 10, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html. ] [122: Hunyor, Jonathon, “Australia’s Immigration Detention System Is Cruel and Damaging by Its Very Nature,” The Guardian on the Web, October 28, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/our-immigration-detention-system-is-cruel-and-damaging-by-its-very-nature. ] [123: BBC News, “Australia Ships Out Afghan Refugees,” BBC News on the Web, September 3, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1522723.stm. ] [124: OXFAM Australia Report, “Australia’s Pacific Solution Becomes a Pacific Nightmare,” August 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20080511180833/http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/still_drifting/. ]
The international community heavily condemned the episode, accusing Australia of breaching its human rights responsibilities. Yet, at home, the episode was received with strong support, and led to a surge in the government’s popularity.[endnoteRef:125] This event was the precursor of a broader strategy known as Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB), which was renewed and expanded in September 2013.[endnoteRef:126] The plan was designed by then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, who became Prime Minister in 2018, with the explicit goal of forcibly deterring displaced individuals from seeking asylum in Australia (see Exhibit 15 for an advertisement of the OSB campaign). At the core of the OSB was the decision to place, for an indefinite amount of time, any refugee trying to reach Australia on the islands of Nauru or Manus. Yet, “once sent offshore, asylum seekers have little hope of ever reaching Australia,” remaining stuck at detention centers in miserable conditions for years.[endnoteRef:127] The Australian government responded to the criticism of the international community by arguing that the OSB saved thousands of lives by “deterring smugglers and migrants.”[endnoteRef:128] The alleged benefits, though, came at huge human costs for refugees interred in the camps. [125: Tavan, Gwenda, “Issues That Swung Elections: Tampa and the National Security Election Of 2001,” The Conversation, accessed on March 2, 2021, https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security-election-of-2001-115143. ] [126: Andrews, Hon Karen, MP, “Australia’s Borders Are Closed to Illegal Immigration: a video message from the new Minister for Home Affairs,” March 31, 2021 https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/.] [127: O’Grady, Siobhán , “Children in Australia’s Offshore Migrant Center Are So Distraught, Some Have Attempted Suicide,” The Washington Post on the Web, September 20, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/.] [128: Mridula Amin and Isabella Kwai, “The Nauru Experience: Zero-Tolerance Immigration and Suicidal Children,” The New York Times, November 5, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/world/australia/nauru-island-asylum-refugees-children-suicide.html#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%2012%20people%20have. ]
Conditions were so deplorable that dozens of children had to be evacuated for “urgent medical care”, with many instances involving “children who have repeatedly attempted suicide or who have become withdrawn and stopped eating or drinking,” as explained by the director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Center in Melbourne, Daniel Webb.[endnoteRef:129] The former chief psychiatrist at the detention centers, Dr. Peter Young, “described the camps as ‘inherently toxic’ and said the immigration department deliberately harmed vulnerable detainees in a process akin to torture.” Dr. Young was echoed by traumatologist and psychologist Paul Stevenson, who stressed that “the conditions in Nauru and Manus camps were the worst ‘atrocity’ he had ever seen.”[endnoteRef:130] When asked about his plans over refugee policies in 2018, though, Mr. Morrison claimed that he “was the one who stopped them” (i.e., the arrival of migrants), and that any change to the existing legislation would have not been “consistent with the border protection regime put in place.”[endnoteRef:131] [129: Siobhan O’Grady, “Children in Australia’s offshore migrant center are so distraught, some have attempted suicide,” The Washington Post, September 20, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/20/children-australias-off-shore-migrant-center-are-so-distraught-some-have-attempted-suicide/. ] [130: Ben Doherty, “A short history of Nauru, Australia’s dumping ground for refugees,” The Guardian, August 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/a-short-history-of-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees. ] [131: Damien Cave, “How Scott Morrison’s Boat Trophy Burst into Public View-and Why it Matters,” The New York Times, September 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/world/australia/scott-morrison-boat-trophy-refugees.html. ]
Japan
With an old and aging population and with low fertility rates, already in the 2000s Japan would have benefitted from increasing the number of immigrants, who are typically younger and with higher fertility rates than natives.[endnoteRef:132] Many noted that “letting more people in may be the only way to reverse the slide to stagnation and decline.”[endnoteRef:133] This would have been a major change for a country that historically placed strong emphasis on traditional values and cultural homogeneity, designing immigration policies that kept the foreign-born share of the population below 2% at least until 2015.[endnoteRef:134] Since the early 2000s, aware of the threats posed to the economy by demographic changes, Japan began to adopt less restrictive policies, allowing the inflow of more foreign workers. Until 2018, a cautious approach was followed, so as “to improve immigrant retention and boost recruitment incrementally under existing immigration policy…while avoiding a potentially contentious public referendum” that may have been triggered by more radical reforms.[endnoteRef:135] [132: Giovanni Peri, “Immigrant Swan Song,” Finance and Development, March 2020, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri.pdf. ] [133: Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. ] [134: “Statistics Bureau Home Page.” www.stat.go.jp, www.stat.go.jp/english/index.html.] [135: David Green, “As Its Population Ages, Japan Quietly Turns to Immigration,” Migration Policy Institute, March 28, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration. ]
The immigration reforms seemed to bear fruits, as Japan saw its immigrant population share increase from 0.88% in 1990 to 2.3% in 2019. [endnoteRef:136] Despite this apparent success, however, many problems remained. For one, previous attempts at increasing immigration had given at best mixed results, questioning the ability of the government to stick with the (pro-immigration) plan. Emblematic was the case of Japanese descendants from Brazil and Peru who were allowed to move to Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but were offered a lump sum transfer and paid the flight ticket to go back home a few decades later, amid increasing backlash among the Japanese population.[endnoteRef:137] Even as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, “thinking the previously unthinkable”, aimed to attract more than 340,000 foreign-born workers to Japan between 2018 and 2024, he was “careful to stress that this is not `immigration’, because these workers are not supposed to stay indefinitely.”[endnoteRef:138] Indeed, the government did not devote any resource to facilitate immigrants’ integration. “The system is not in place to accept foreigners as human beings,” wrote member of the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Akira Nagatsuma, who also worried that Japan was not doing enough to prepare foreign-born workers for their new life in Japan and to protect their rights. “What about their social welfare? What about their housing? What about their Japanese language education? None of these have been dealt with,” continued Akira Nagatsuma.[endnoteRef:139] “This isn’t about Japan becoming a multicultural society,” echoed Professor of Japanese politics and society, Gabriele Vogt. “This is just very plain labor market politics.”[endnoteRef:140] [136: David Green, “As Its Population Ages, Japan Quietly Turns to Immigration,” Migration Policy Institute, March 28, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-population-ages-japan-quietly-turns-immigration. ] [137: Hiroko Tabuchi, “Japan Pays Foreign Workers to Go Home,” The New York Times, April 22, 2009, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigrant.html. ] [138: Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. ] [139: Simon Denyer and Akiko Kashiwagi, “Japan passes controversial new immigration bill to attract foreign workers,” The Washington Post, December 7, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-passes-controversial-new-immigration-bill-to-attract-foreign-workers/2018/12/07/a76d8420-f9f3-11e8-863a-8972120646e0_story.html. ] [140: Motoko Rich, “Bucking a Global Trend, Japan Seeks More Immigrants. Ambivalently.” The New York Times, December 7, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/world/asia/japan-parliament-foreign-workers.html. ]
“Economic imperatives and cultural consensus are at war…It’s no longer possible for the country to continue to pretend it can get by without migrants. But it’s politically impossible to truly welcome them, either” noted political commentator Francisco Toro.[endnoteRef:141] Mirroring the experience of many other countries – from France to Italy to the U.S. to Sweden – also in Japan fears of immigration and diversity triggered backlash, which included rallies organized by the far-right party Japan First.[endnoteRef:142] While support for Japan First was slim, and many condemned the extreme positions of the party, concerns over social change and disruptions associated with immigration were widespread. Many worried that foreigners were unable to understand the subtle norms, such as “kuui wo yomu” (“reading the air”), which often involved “near telepathic understanding of the unspoken social minutiae of daily life” in a rich and complex culture.[endnoteRef:143] Kei Hakata, Professor at Seiki University in Tokyo, remarked that opposition and concerns over immigration were expected to rise among “ordinary people who want to preserve their culture, history and identity,” and that should not be labeled as xenophobia. “It’s a defense mechanism at work,” continued Kei Hakata.[endnoteRef:144] [141: Francisco Toro, “Japan is a Trumpian paradise of low immigration rates. It’s also a dying country,” The Washington Post, August 29, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/29/japan-is-trumpian-paradise-low-immigration-rates-its-also-dying-country/.] [142: “Far Right Group Staging a Nationwide ‘Anti Immigrant’ Day,” GaijinPot Blog, October 14, 2018, https://blog.gaijinpot.com/far-right-group-staging-a-nationwide-anti-immigrant-day/. ] [143: Bryan Lufkin, “More seniors, more foreigners: How Japan is changing,” BBC, December 10, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181210-more-seniors-more-foreigners-how-japan-is-rapidly-changing. ] [144: Simon Denyer, “Aging Japan needs new blood. But a plan to allow more foreign workers sparks concerns,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/aging-japan-needs-new-blood-but-a-plan-to-allow-more-foreign-workers-sparks-concerns/2018/11/15/7bf50b24-e297-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html. ]
Arab Gulf Countries
Fueled by the oil boom of the 1970s, immigration to the Gulf countries skyrocketed. As of 2018, immigrants vastly out-numbered natives in both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where they accounted for more than 88% of the total population (see Exhibit 16 for trends in the immigrant and total population in the UAE).[endnoteRef:145] While lower, numbers were remarkable also in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where the immigrant share of the population stood at 37% and 48%, respectively.[endnoteRef:146] Most migrants were unskilled and were employed as temporary workers in the construction industry or, in particular women, as domestic labor. Working conditions in the Arab Gulf countries had historically been regulated by the exploitative kafala system,[endnoteRef:147] where immigrants faced “near-feudal conditions that Human Rights Watch has likened to `forced labor’.”[endnoteRef:148] [145: For more details about immigration to the UAE see: https://gulfmigration.org/media/pubs/exno/GLMM_EN_2018_01.pdf.. See https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/QAT/qatar/net-migration#:~:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for and https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ARE/uae/net-migration#:~:text=The%20net%20migration%20rate%20for for migration statistics about Qatar and the UAE respectively. ] [146: “Bahrain Immigration Statistics 1960-2021,” Macrotrends, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BHR/bahrain/immigration-statistics;; Saudi Arabia Immigration Statistics 1960-2021, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SAU/saudi-arabia/immigration-statistics.] [147: Longva, Anh Nga. 1999. “Keeping Migrant Workers in Check: The Kafala System in the Gulf.” Middle East Report 29 (211): 20–22. ] [148: Richard Morin, “Indentured Servitude in the Persian Gulf,” The New York Times, April 12, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/indentured-servitude-in-the-persian-gulf.html. ]
Under this system, foreign workers would need a sponsor in order to be employed. Even if some differences existed, the leitmotif was always the same: once in host countries, migrants were fully dependent upon their employers, and did not have any protection or right. This typically resulted in “hazardous working conditions, long hours, unpaid wages, and cramped and unsanitary housing.”[endnoteRef:149] In many instances, migrants had their passports confiscated for the duration of their stay and could not leave their employers. Conditions were particularly dismal for construction workers, who were “housed by employers in camps and [were] reliant on them for food and drink,”[endnoteRef:150] and for domestic female workers, who often suffered abuses and violence perpetrated by their native employers.[endnoteRef:151] When asked why she decided to move to Dubai, despite the precarious and dangerous working conditions, Mary Molina Ramos, a 39 year-old woman from the Philippines, answered “It feels good to support my family…I am so happy I will be able to send my daughter to university next year.”[endnoteRef:152] Ms. Ramos was one of the millions of migrant workers in the Arab Gulf countries who sent remittances back to their home countries. “The G.C.C. is one of the highest remittance outflow areas globally, with Saudi Arabia coming in second in the world after the United States,” explained Professor George Naufal from the American University of Sharjah (UAE).[endnoteRef:153] As noted by Western Union’s vice president for the Gulf, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Sobia Rahman, remittances were not only “putting food on the table and paying medical bills…They are contributing heavily to the human capital buildup in their home countries by educating the next generation.”[endnoteRef:154] [149: See Human Rights Watch. 2013. “South Asia: Protect Migrant Workers to Gulf Countries.” December 18. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/18/south-asia-protect -migrant-workers-gulf-countries.] [150: Simone Foxman Bloomberg and Vivian Nereim, “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules Are an Issue in Persion Gulf,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html. ] [151: Laura Secorun, “The Perils of Housecleaning Abroad,” The New York Times, August 6, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/opinion/international-world/domestic-workers-middle-east.html. ] [152: Sara Hamdan, “Women Fuel Rise in Remittances from the Gulf,” The New York Times, June 27, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/world/middleeast/women-fuel-rise-in-remittances-from-the-gulf.html. ] [153: Simone Foxman Bloomberg and Vivian Nereim, “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules Are an Issue in Persion Gulf,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-kafala-labor-rules-are-an-issue-in-persian-gulf/2020/11/05/14babe24-1f97-11eb-ad53-4c1fda49907d_story.html. ] [154: Ibid.]
Responding to pressure from the international community, some countries – most notably Qatar and Bahrain – introduced changes to improve workers’ conditions, such as establishing a minimum wage and relaxing restrictions to workers’ mobility.[endnoteRef:155] These changes, however, were viewed as ineffective by many labor-rights advocates, who believed that, in practice, the kafala system remained in place.[endnoteRef:156] Authorities in most Gulf countries were aware that, over time, exploitative conditions would have reduced immigrants’ incentives to move there, in turn putting at risk their economies, which relied almost exclusively on foreign workers. [155: “Reform the Kafala System,” Migrant Rights Org, https://www.migrant-rights.org/campaign/end-the-kafala-system/. ] [156: “Why ‘Kafala’ Labor Rules are an Issue in Persian Gulf,” BloombergQuint, https://www.bloombergquint.com/quicktakes/why-labor-rules-are-such-a-big-issue-in-persian-gulf-quicktake-kf6u0xl0. ]
The persistence of the kafala system may have also discouraged international investors to fund projects in the G.C.C. area, both because of moral considerations and because of fears over future instability potentially triggered by sudden unrest among foreign-born workers.[endnoteRef:157] More than 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka had died in Qatar since the country was awarded the 2022 World Cup in 2010, or about 12 a week (not counting those from other countries). Since many who died had been involved in building stadiums and such for the event, some players and observers called for a boycott.[endnoteRef:158] However, natives strongly opposed the idea of weakening the kafala system — something that would increase labor costs and reduce their privileges. In a survey conducted in Qatar, more than 90% of Qataris were against the dismantling of the kafala, and 30% of them were in favor of reducing workers’ rights and prerogatives even further. In an environment where migrant workers had no voice, demands from the native population were hard to ignore. Any attempt to introduce reforms “must go slowly,” declared Hussein al-Mulla, the Labor Ministry of Qatar.[endnoteRef:159] [157: Barry Meier, “Labor Scrutiny for FIFA as a World Cup Rises in the Qatar Desert,” The New York Times, July 15, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/senate-fifa-inquiry-to-include-plight-of-construction-workers-in-qatar.html. ] [158: Peter Pattisson, Niamh McIntyre, Imran Mukhtar, Nihil Eapen, Imran Mukhtar, MdOwasim Uddin Bhuyan, Udwab Bhattarai, and Aanya Piyari, “Revealed: 6,500 Migrant Workers Have Died in Qatar Since World Cup Awarded,” The Guardian, 23 February, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosworld&stream=world;; Kendall Baker and Dave Lawler, “Boycott Threats Loom Over Qatar World Cup and Beijing Olympics,” Axios, April 2, 2021, https://www.axios.com/boycott-qatar-world-cup-beijing-olympics-07276a8f-af8d-415c-84ea-aa95ea888175.html. ] [159: Richard Morin, “Indentured Servitude in the Persian Gulf,” The New York Times, April 12, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/indentured-servitude-in-the-persian-gulf.html. ]
Conclusion
Immigration had played a foundational role in human history, and particularly so in that of the United States. “The realization of America’s vast economic potential has… been due in significant measure to the efforts of immigrants. They supplied much of the labor and technical skill needed to tap the underdeveloped resources of a virgin continent,” wrote historian Maldwin Jones when describing the impact of European immigrants moving to the U.S. during the Age of Mass Migration.[endnoteRef:160] “Global talent has been an enormous boon to the United States,” echoed William Kerr referring to immigrants from practically any other continent in the world for the more recent period.[endnoteRef:161] Immigrants’ contributions were not merely economic: kindergarten was imported by German immigrant Friederich Fröbel,[endnoteRef:162] whereas the university system introduced by many U.S. states built on the Prussian model.[endnoteRef:163] Immigration also enriched American culture, from cinema to cuisine to sports,[endnoteRef:164] and left its footprint on political ideology.[endnoteRef:165] “It helps to remember that America’s immigrant history made us who we are,” declared former Republican President George W. Bush.[endnoteRef:166] [160: Jones, M. (1992). American Immigration. University of Chicago Press.] [161: Kerr, William R. (2018). The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society. Stanford University Press.] [162: Ager, Philipp and Cinnirella, Francesco (2020). “Froebel’s Gifts: How The Kindergarten Movement Changed The American Family,” CEPR Working Paper 15146.] [163: Faust, Albert Bernhardt (1916). The Germans in the United States. German University League.] [164: Hirschman, Charles (2013). “The Contributions of Immigrants to American Culture,” Daedalus, 142(3), 26-47.] [165: Giuliano, Paola and Marco Tabellini (2020). “The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 20-118.] [166: Eli Watkins, “George W. Bush: ‘Immigration is a blessing and a strength,” CNN Politics, March 18, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/george-bush-naturalization-ceremony/index.html. ]
During the presidency of Donald Trump, characterized by immigration restrictions, travel bans, and the resurgence of nativism, a casual observer may have concluded that America had repudiated its very same identity, as exemplified by Emma Lazarus’ poem “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”[endnoteRef:167] Yet, upon a closer look, this was nothing new. Immigrants – no matter if they came from Norway,[endnoteRef:168] from Mexico,[endnoteRef:169] or from any other country[endnoteRef:170] – always triggered heated debates, stark polarization, and led to the introduction of stringent immigration policies.[endnoteRef:171] Opposition to immigration was perhaps more surprising in the United States, given its history, but was a phenomenon common to most countries in the world.[endnoteRef:172] Some observers speculated that concerns about immigration were a key factor behind the 2016 Brexit vote.[endnoteRef:173] Others suggested that the rising support for populist parties across Europe since 2010 was linked to immigration.[endnoteRef:174] Even when anti-immigrant sentiments were not explicit, they nonetheless contributed to the design of stringent policies to maintain cultural and ethnic homogeneity, such as in South Korea or in Japan.[endnoteRef:175] [167: The poem the “New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus (1883) is displayed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.] [168: Andrew Van Dam, “Norway was Once the Kind of Country Trump Might’ve Spit On. Now its People Don’t Even Want to Come Here,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/12/trump-wants-more-immigrants-from-norway-theres-a-reason-they-arent-coming/. ] [169: Michael Barbaro, “Highlights of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech and Mexico Trip,” The New York Times, August 31, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico.html. ] [170: Josh Dawsey, “Trump Derides Protections for Immigrants from ‘Shithole’ Countries,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?undefined=&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1. ] [171: For rising political backlash in response to immigration during the early twentieth century see, for instance, Tabellini, Marco (2020). “Gifts of the Immigrants, Woes of the Natives: Lessons from the Age of Mass Migration,” Review of Economic Studies, 87(1), 454-486.] [172: Neli Esipova, Anita Pugliese, and Julie Ray, “Europeans Most Negative Toward Immigration,” Gallup, October 16, 2015, https://news.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx. ] [173: Karla Adam and William Booth, “Immigration Worries Drove the Brexit Vote. Then Attitudes Changed,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/immigration-worries-drove-the-brexit-vote-then-attitudes-changed/2018/11/16/c216b6a2-bcdb-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html. ] [174: “Europe and right wing nationalism: A country by country guide,” BBC News, November 13, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006. ] [175: Brook Larmer, “South Korea’s Most Dangerous Enemy: Demographics,” The New York Times, February 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/south-koreas-most-dangerous-enemy-demographics.html. ]
Skepticism towards immigration was sometimes linked to the threats posed by immigrants to native workers’ employment and wages. Others argued that immigrants represented a fiscal burden for host countries and benefitted from social welfare programs paid for by natives. In many instances, however, “non-economic forces are at least as important as economic ones,” and “backlash is more likely to emerge when immigrants are `different’ (culturally, racially, ethnically) from natives,” argued Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and others.[endnoteRef:176] This was not so surprising. After all, homophily tended to prevail at the interpersonal level,[endnoteRef:177] most individuals favored “in-group” members over “out-group” ones,[endnoteRef:178] and people were typically worried about diversity and uncertainty.[endnoteRef:179] [176: Alesina, Alberto and Marco Tabellini (2020). “The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?” Harvard Business School Working Paper 21-069. ] [177: Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713.] [178: Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., and Worchel, S. (1979). “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” Organizational identity: A reader, 56(65), 9780203505984-16.] [179: Stephan, W. G., and Stephan, C. W. (2000). “An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice,” Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 23-45.]
When the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, between January and March 2020, most countries, including the United States, introduced stringent travel restrictions, leading to a drastic drop in international mobility.[endnoteRef:180] Such restrictions were initially designed as temporary measures to prevent the spread of the virus; however, some worried that they could become permanent and that several countries (especially in the developed world) could use health-related motivations as an excuse to enact restrictive, long-lasting immigration legislation.[endnoteRef:181] Others feared that the pandemic might have exacerbated the distinction between “insiders” and “outsiders”, fueling the scapegoating of minorities.[endnoteRef:182] [180: Phillip Connor, “More than nine in ten people worldwide live in countries with travel restrictions amid COVID-19,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/more-than-nine-in-ten-people-worldwide-live-in-countries-with-travel-restrictions-amid-covid-19/. ] [181: Katie Rogers, “Trump Plans to Suspend Immigration to U.S.,” The New York Times, April 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/us/politics/trump-immigration.html. ] [182: Gerry Boyle, “Coronavirus Used to Stoke Anti-immigration Fears,” Colby, http://www.colby.edu/magazine/coronavirus-as-threat-and-vindication/. ]
From an economist’s perspective, limitations on international mobility and the heightened fears of diversity would impose tremendous costs on the U.S. and the global economy by altering the efficient allocation of talent and resources. More importantly, they would have dramatic consequences for millions of individuals who, every year, sought to escape wars, natural disasters, and extreme poverty. Indeed, a late 2018 Gallup poll suggested that more than 750 million people in the world would emigrate if they could.[endnoteRef:183] But what did this entail for human capital and development in the countries from which people left? What were the global consequences of immigration for sending and receiving countries, not to mention for expatriate people themselves? And why had ideologies of globalization largely focused on the free movement of goods and capital, but not people? Was America (and the world) again closing down, or would a new era dawn in which humans, and not only capital and goods, became free to move as they pleased? [183: Neli Esipova, Anita Pugliere, and Julie Ray, “More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate if They Could,” Gallup, December 10, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx. ]
Immigration policy in the U.S. had been at an impasse for four decades, but the country’s example continued to matter for the international system more broadly. In early 2021, the future of globalization itself depended on the stance that the newly elected U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris decided to adopt on the issue.

Exhibit 1Summary of Provisions Included in the 2013 Senate Bill

CITIZENSHIP PATH FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

Necessary Preliminary Conditions

· Roughly doubling the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border
· Completing 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the border
· Implementing a system for all employers to verify electronically their workers’ legal status

Citizenship Path

· People living in the U.S. illegally could obtain “registered provisional immigrant status” if
(i) They arrived in the U.S. prior to Dec. 31, 2011, and maintained continuous physical presence since then
(ii) They did not have a felony conviction or three or more misdemeanors
(iii) They paid a $500 fine
· People in provisional legal status could work and travel to the U.S. but would not be eligible for most federal benefits, including health care and welfare
· The provisional legal status would last six years and would be renewable for another six years upon payment of $500
· After 10 years in provisional status, immigrants could seek a green card and lawful permanent resident status if they were currently on their taxes and pay a $1,000 fine, had maintained continuous physical presence in the U.S., met work requirements and learnt English
· People deported for noncriminal reasons could apply to re-enter in provisional status if they had a spouse or a child who was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, or if they had been brought to the U.S. as a child

NEW FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Low-Skilled Workers

· New W visa for jobs in construction, long-term care, hospitality and other industries (200,000 low-skilled workers a year)
· Agriculture workers already in the U.S. illegally, who worked in the industry for at least two years, could qualify for another five years for green cards if they were to stay in the industry

High-Skilled Workers

· Raised cap on the H-1B visa program for high-skilled workers. The cap could go as high as 180,000 a year depending on demand
· Immigrants with certain extraordinary abilities, such as professors, researchers, graduates of U.S. universities with job offers, multinational executives and athletes, would be exempted from existing green-card limits
· New merit visa (for max 250,000 people a year) with a point system based on education, employment and length of residence in the U.S.
· Startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs seeking to start a company in the U.S.
· Suppression of the government’s Diversity Visa Lottery Program

Source: Adapted from Associated Press, “Immigration bill summary,” Politico, June 28, 2013, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557.
Exhibit 3Number of Immigrants Entering the U.S. (in thousands)

Source: Casewriter based on Migration Policy Institute tabulations of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (various years), available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history….

Exhibit 2Immigrants as a Percent of the U.S. Population

Source: Tabellini, M. (2020). “Gifts of the Immigrants, Woes of the Natives: Lessons from the Age of Mass Migration,” Review of Economic Studies, 87(1): 454-486.

Exhibit 4Foreign-Born Share of the U.S. Population over Time

Source: Casewriter based on data from the decennial U.S. Population Census until 2010 and from the American Community Survey (ACS) after 2010, obtained from Ruggles, Steven, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Joasiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek (2020). “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 10.0,” Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Exhibit 5Number of Undocumented Immigrants Residing in the U.S. (in millions)

Source: Adapted by casewriter from Passel, Jeffrey S., and Cohn, D’vera, “Mexicans Decline to Less than Half the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time,” Pew Research Center Fact Tank, June 12, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/. Original data are from Pew Research Center estimates based on augmented U.S. Census Bureau data.

Exhibit 6Summary of Provisions Included in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act

BORDER ENFORCEMENT

· Introduced new criminal penalties for fraudulent use of identity documents and for knowingly transporting or harboring unauthorized immigrants
· Increased appropriations for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which handled immigration enforcement, and for the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which adjudicated deportation cases
· Scheduled a 50% increase (from its 1986 level) in the number of Border Patrol agents

IMMIGRANT WORKERS

· Introduced civil and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants
· Introduced a verification procedure for employers to verify and document the lawful status of new hires
· Made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a job applicant based on his or her national origin or citizenship status

LEGALIZATION PATH

· Unauthorized immigrants who had been continuously present in the United States since January 1, 1982, could apply for temporary, and later permanent, legal status if they met certain conditions. Such applicants could eventually qualify for U.S. citizenship.
· Allowed federal reimbursement to states for the costs of incarcerating certain unauthorized immigrants who had committed crimes

NEW PROGRAMS

· H-2A guest worker program for agricultural employers to sponsor foreign-born temporary guest workers for up to three years
· First visa waiver pilot program, which allowed nationals from certain countries to enter the United States visa-free for up to 90 days for either business or tourism purposes
· Introduction of the SLIAG program to reduce the financial burden of providing public assistance, public health assistance, and educational services to eligible legalized aliens. In Fiscal Year 1988, $928.5 million in program funds were allocated to states.
· Introduction of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the immigration status of recipients of public benefits.

Source: Adapted by casewriter from Chishti, M., D. Meissner, and C. Bergeron (2011). “At Its 25th Anniversary, IRCA’s Legacy Lives On ,” Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, November 2011.

Exhibit 7The (Failed) History of the DREAM Act

Date

Main Sponsor

Name

Main Points

Reason for Failure

December 2001

House of Representatives

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, (R)

Development, Relief, and Education for Allen, Minors Act or the DREAM Act [S.1291]

Permit states to grant temporal conditional residency for higher education purposes for those undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors.

Did not pass the Senate

December 2005

House of Representatives

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R)

Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act

Criminalization of undocumented migration, from civil violation to federal felony.

Failed to pass the Senate

May 2006

Senate

Sen. Alren Specter, (R)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act [S.2611]

Increase border and internal security; provide a path for legalization of undocumented immigrants.

Did not pass the House

May 2007

Senate

Sen. Harry Reid, (D)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348]

As in the 2006 act, undocumented migrants would have to apply for legalization from abroad.

The Senate failed to invoke cloture and the bill was then pulled from the floor

November 2010

House of Representatives

Rep. Howard L. Berman, (D)

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, (D) (in Senate)

DREAM Act of 2010 [H.R.6497]

Provide temporary residence permits for children who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met predetermined requirements.

Approved in the House but failed to pass the Senate

June 2013

Senate

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, (D)

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act [S.744]

Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants; attract workers; devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Failed to pass the House

July 2017

Senate

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R)

DREAM Act of 2017 [S.1615]

Less stringent requirements to acquire citizenship, with respect to the 2010 version.

Failed

Source: Adapted by casewriter from: Zepeda-Millán, C. (2017). Latino Mass Mobilization: Immigration, Racialization, and Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; from the Migration Policy Institute at the links https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-and-united-states-recession-affects-flows-prospects-reform#3 and https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/side-side-comparison-2013-senate-immigration-framework-2006-and-2007-senate-legislation
Exhibit 8Distribution of Immigrants by Skill, Across U.S. Local Labor Market (2013)
Panel A: High-Skilled Immigrants

Panel B: Low-Skilled Immigrants

Source: Casewriter based on data from the 2013 five-year estimates of the American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Panel A plots the number of high-skilled immigrants per 1,000 PUMA residents. Panel B plots the number of low-skilled immigrants per 1,000 PUMA residents. High- and low-skilled immigrants were defined as foreign-born individuals who were not in school and were at least 18 years old with at least a college degree and with at most a high school (or equivalent) degree, respectively. Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) were statistical geographic areas nested within states (or equivalent units that were based on counties and census tracts), were geographically contiguous, and contained at least 100,000 people.
Exhibit 9Immigration and Polarization in the U.S. Congress and Senate

Source: Adapted by casewriter from Alesina, A. and M. Tabellini (2020). “The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?” CEPR Working Paper 15486. Data on immigration are from Migration Policy Institute (adapted from U.S. Census data): tabulations of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (various years). Available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#history…. Data on political ideology are from Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database (Lewis, J. B., Poole, K., Rosenthal, H., Boche, A., Rudkin, A. and Sonnet, L., 2020)

Source: Adapted by casewriter from Jones, B, “Americans’ Views of Immigrants Marked by Widening Partisan, Generational Divides,” Pew Research Center, April 15, 2016. Data are from Pew Research Survey conducted in March, 2016.

Exhibit 11Growing affective polarization

Source: Casewriter based on data from the American National Election Studies (ANES).
Note: The red line plots the average feelings of Republicans towards the Democratic Party minus the average feelings of Republicans towards the Republican Party on a scale from 0 to 100. The blue line plots the analogous series for Democrats. The grey, dashed line plots the difference between the blue and red lines.

Exhibit 12Immigration policies and executive orders during Donald Trump’s Presidency

President Trump Immigration Policies

2017 – 2020

Date

Executive Order

Summary

Status

25-Jan-17

Executive Order 13768, Executive Order 13767

Trump signed two executive orders. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (13768) introduced penalties on sanctuary cities and made them ineligible for federal grants, prioritized the deportation of individuals who posed a threat to national security, and reinstated the “Secure Communities” deportation program. The second order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” called for the construction of the border wall.

Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the US: preliminary injunction halted its enforcement Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements: in place

27-Jan-17

Executive Order 13780

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (13780) suspended the refugee admission program for 120 days and banned immigrants and nonimmigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days.

Revoked and replaced by March 16th order.

10-Feb-17

ICE conducts operations targeting criminals

ICE conducted a series of enforcement operations to target convicted criminals, gang members, and individuals who had re-entered the country after being deported, which resulted in more than 680 arrests by February 13th (3 days later).

N/A

20-Feb-17

DHS issues guidance on enforcement of immigration laws

Two guidance memos were released. “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement Policies” provided guidance for Trump’s previous executive order, covering a wide range of immigration issues. “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” prioritized the removal of individuals convicted or charged with a crime.

N/A

6-Mar-17

Executive Order 13780

Trump revised “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” removing Iraq from the original list of countries after its government instituted new vetting procedures. It also specified that current visa holders weren’t affected and removed the indefinite suspension on Syrian refugee admission.

See September 24, 2017 revision

20-Mar-17

DHS issues first detainer report

The DHS released a report highlighting jurisdictions that have declined to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers for potentially removable individuals who have been arrested or held in police custody.

N/A

18-Apr-17

Executive Order 13788

Executive order, “Buy American and Hire American” that directed federal agencies to comply with laws that require prioritizing American firms and goods when contracting for projects. It also directed the secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of labor, and secretary of homeland security to develop new regulations to prevent fraud and abuse of the immigration system.

In place

15-Jun-17

Trump administration rescinds Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy

John Kelly rescinded a policy that suspended the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission who were parents of US citizens.

N/A

11-Jul-17

DHS delays implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule

The DHS delayed the implementation of a rule from the Obama administration that would have allowed entrepreneurs from foreign countries to enter the United States for 30 months to establish a startup business. It was delayed from July 17 to March 14.

N/A

25-Jul-17

New Byrne criminal justice grant requirements for cities and states

Localities receiving Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which provide federal funding to states and localities for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, would need to meet new conditions to remain eligible.

There were two lawsuits against it: one from Chicago and another from California. A nationwide injunction against the grant requirements was upheld on April 19, 2018.

2-Aug-17

S.1103: Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act

The proposed Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act would give immigrants points based on education, English-language ability, high-paying job offers, age, record of extraordinary achievement, and entrepreneurial initiative. In order to be eligible for a visa, an individual would need to earn 30 points. It would also eliminate the Diversity Lottery.

Did not receive a vote in the Senate, though a similar legislation supported by Trump was defeated in 2018. It was reintroduced in 2019.

5-Sep-17

Trump administration ends DACA

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that they would be rescinding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The program was established underneath the Obama administration and provided temporary relief from deportation for individuals who had been brought without legal permission to the United States as children.

This was supposed to go into effect on March 5, 2018; however, federal judges in San Francisco and New York issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Trump administration to continue renewing DACA permits until the court reached a final decision on DACA.

18-Sep-17

U.S. State Department outlines new requirements for visa holders

The Secretary of State issued a memo outlining new requirements for visa holders. Individuals who obtain a visa before entering the country must abide by their stated plan for at least three months, rather than the previous 1 month. If events occur within this period that were not mentioned, the US State Department will presume the visa holder deliberately misrepresented their reasons for coming to the US and they will be eligible for deportation.

In place

24-Sep-17

Executive Order 13780

Trump issued guidelines to his March 6th executive order, outlining new travel restrictions that vary by country on certain individuals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen which would take effect on October 18th, 2017.

On October 20, 2017 US District Judge Derrick Watson issued a preliminary injunction against the restrictions, preventing them from going into effect. The Supreme Court allowed the full plan to take effect on December 4.

27-Sep-17

Trump administration limits number of refugees to be admitted to the U.S. to 45,000

Trump announced he would allow no more than 45,000 refugees into the US during 2018 in order to make sure that all refugees are properly vetted. The ceiling had never slipped lower than 67,000 under Reagan.

In place

24-Oct-17

Restrictions on refugee admissions expire; new guidelines in place

The suspension of refugee admissions outlined in the March 6 executive order expired. Trump issued a new executive order ordering refugee admissions to resume with new national security procedures.

In place

20-Nov-17

DHS announces end date for program allowing Haitians to live and work in U.S.

The Temporary Protected Status designation for Haiti after its 2010 earthquake was terminated. Haitians living in the US had until July 22, 2019 to return to Haiti or apply for lawful immigration to the US.

N/A

5-Jan-18

Trump administration sends list of immigration priorities to lawmakers

The Trump administration outlined a list of immigration priorities: $18 billion to construct the wall, an end to chain migration, an end to the diversity-visa lottery, changes to the asylum system, mandatory use of the e-Verify system for businesses to check the employment status of prospective employees, and $33 billion in new border security spending over 10 years.

N/A

8-Jan-18

DHS announces end date for program allowing El Salvadorans to live and work in U.S.

DHS Secretary announced the termination of the TPS designation for El Salvador, giving El Salvadorans until September 9, 2019 to either return to El Salvador or apply for lawful immigration status in the US. The decision faced much criticism

N/A

24-Jan-18

Trump says he supports a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients

President Trump said he supported a 10-12 year time frame to give individuals who were brought into the US without legal permission as children a pathway to citizenship. He also said he would consider moving back the expiration date of March 5, 2018 if Congress failed to pass into a law a legislative fix.

N/A

25-Jan-18

Trump administration releases initial framework for immigration plan

The Trump administration released an immigration plan that would allow as many as 1.8 million individuals who were brought into the US without legal permission as children citizenship in exchange for $25 billion in border security and other changes to the immigration system.

Rejected (see February 15, 2018)

15-Feb-18

Senate rejects four immigration reform proposals

The Senate began voting on a series of immigration bills aimed at finding a legislative fix for the expiring DACA program and border security measures. It rejected a measure proposing a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the US illegally as children. It also rejected an amendment that proposed withholding “certain non-law enforcement federal grant funds from ‘sanctuary cities’“, a bipartisan proposal for the path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought to the US illegally as children, $25 billion for border security, and limitations on family-based immigration. A proposal that included Trump’s four immigration pillars (a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals, $25 billion for border security, limits on chain migration, and eliminating the visa lottery system) was also rejected.

N/A

6-Mar-18

DOJ files lawsuit against California’s immigration laws

The DOJ filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor Jerry Brown, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra for passing three state laws (Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103) that the DOJ said prevent officials from enforcing federal immigration law.

N/A

2-Apr-18

Justice Department announces quotas for immigration judges

The DOJ announced quotas aimed at shortening the backlog of immigration cases which requiring judges to close 700 cases per year.

In place

4-Apr-18

Trump signs memorandum to deploy troops to U.S.-Mexico border

Trump signed a memorandum to deploy National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border to combat a surge of illegal activity, saying that the situation has reached a point of crisis.

N/A

7-May-18

Trump administration announces it will prosecute parents who cross the border with their children

Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would prosecute parents who crossed the US border illegally with their children, calling for the parents to be separated from their children and for their children to be placed in shelters or with families. A lot of criticism arose opposing this policy.

Continued at least unofficially until October 2019.

11-Jun-18

Sessions says individuals who are victims of private crime not eligible for asylum

Jeff Sessions announced that individuals who are victims of private crime (incl. domestic and gang violence) would no longer qualify for asylum in the US.

Judge Emmett Sullivan called the Trump asylum policy “arbitrary” and “capricious” on December 19, 2018, ruling in favor of 12 adults and children who had challenged the policy.

20-Jun-18

Executive Order 13841

“Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation” was an Executive Order that President Donald Trump signed, directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep detained families together. The order also called on the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in providing housing for families when detention centers are at capacity.

In place

26-Oct-18

Trump administration to send troops to U.S.-Mexico border

The Secretary of Defense approved a request from the DHS to send additional members of the military to the southwest border to assist border patrol agents with a convoy of thousands of migrants trying to enter the US. 5,200 troops would be deployed to accompany the 2,000 National Guard troops that had already been sent in April 2018.

N/A

9-Nov-18

Proclamation 9822

Trump signed a presidential proclamation preventing migrants who enter the country without legal permission from claiming asylum. The same day he issued the proclamation, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the administration.

On November 19, 2018 US District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s presidential proclamation on asylum on the grounds that it conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

20-Dec-18

DHS announces some migrants will be sent back to Mexico to await immigration proceedings

The DHS announced that individuals attempting to enter the US without legal permission or proper documentation could be returned to Mexico while waiting for immigration proceedings.

In place

15-Feb-19

Trump signs bill to fund parts of the government and border barrier; declares state of emergency

Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. Because he didn’t get the amount requested ($5.7 billion), he declared a state emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1 billion towards the wall.

Sixteen states filed suit against Trump’s emergency declaration, and on February 26, 2019 the House passed a resolution to overturn the emergency declaration.

22-Apr-20

Proclamation 10015

Trump issued the “Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak” proclamation. This proclamation suspended the entry of certain classes of aliens as immigrants into the United States for a period of 60 days, starting on April 23, 2020.

On June 22, 2020, Trump extended the suspension of entry in Proclamation 10052.

18-Jun-20

SCOTUS rules DHS did not properly follow APA when seeking to end DACA

The SCOTUS ruled in DHS v. Regents of the University of California that DHS did not properly follow Administrative Procedure Act procedures when it sought to end the DACA program in 2017.

In place

22-Jun-20

Proclamation 10052

Trump issued the “Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak” proclamation. This extends the suspension of entry for certain immigrants (Presidential Proclamation 10014) through December 31, 2020.

In place

9-Jul-20

Executive Order 13935

Trump issued the “White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative”, an order to improve Hispanic Americans’ access to educational and economic opportunities.

In place

Source: Compiled by the casewriter.
Exhibit 13Racial and ethnic diversity across countries

Source: Fisher, Max. “A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse counties.” The Washington Post, May 16, 2013. Data source: Harvard Institute for Economic Research. See the entire article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Exhibit 14Migration-friendly development index (Center for Global Development)

Exhibit 15Australian government’s advertisement of Operation Sovereign Borders

Source: Australian Government – Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/…. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU).
Note: Australian government’s advertisement circulated during the “Stop the Boats” campaign (September 2013).

Exhibit 16Total and foreign born population in the UAE over time

Source: Adapted by casewriter from F. De Bel-Air, “Demography, Migration, and the Labour Market in the UAE,” Explanatory Note No. 7/2015, GLMM, http://gulfmigration.eu…. Data are from the National Bureau of Statistics/ Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority.

Endnotes

image2.png

image3.png

image4.png

image5.gif

image6.gif

image7.png

image8.gif

image9.gif

image10.gif

image11.png

image12.png

image13.jpeg

image14.png

image1.png

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.5 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV /HUN /ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 6.0 e versioni successive.) /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 6.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create high quality Adobe PDF documents suitable for a delightful viewing experience and printing of business documents. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 7.0 and later.) >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

Interested in getting help with this assignment?
Get a professional writing team to work on your assignment!
Order Now
Recent postsFor this final assignment, you will prepare a brief paper detailing the steps undertaken to complete a presentation that disseminates information you assemble
Please choose to answer only one of the 2 following questions. Option 1: In your opinion and based on scientific, peer-reviewed published evidence, does child
At the beginning of the previous academic year, the institution announced it would drop football at the conclusion of the season. The announcement created pub
you will review current research in Personality and provide a critical evaluation of that personality research through an annotated bibliography. An annotated
In Module 5, we considered the third in our three-part series on research design. Specifically, the focus was on the longitudinal studies, in which the resear

Need help with a similar or different Task?

We have the best writers to help you. Hire Writer Now