https://dh.scu.edu/exhibits/files/original/90/2937/U.S._IMMIGRATION_AND_REFUGEE_POLICY_1983_22Current_Status_of_U.S._Immigration_and_Refugee_Policy_22_and_22_Immigration_as_an_Intrusive_Global_Flow_A_New_Perspective_22.pdf 6accef3dec4276f9982b360b956a4e0d PDF Text Text Center for Migration Studies (NY) U.S. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY, 1983: "Current Status of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy" and "'Immigration as an Intrusive Global Flow; A New Perspective" Source: Center for Migration Studies (NY) Contributed by: Kritz, Mary M. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/community.29222931 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Center for Migration Studies (NY) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Center for Migration Studies (NY) This content downloaded from 24.4.24.213 on Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:24:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �from: Charles B. Keely, "Current Status of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy," In Mary M. Kritz,editor, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY, 1983 1 Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp, 339~359, Why Is Immigration Policy So Hnrd lo Change? The previous recitation of specific issues gives us lillle guidance about the shape of future immigration and refugee policy. The business ofa prophet is risky. In the case of immigration, the pace of change itself should raise questions-after all, official concern as evidenced in congressional hearings about illegal migration began more than ten years ago. Although trying to predict what is going lo happen is an interesting parlor game. it may be lcs.s valuable than trying to shed light on the pace of change in the recent past. That light might even illuminate the future a bit and tell us what to expect and why. The reason for slow change in this mailer is no different from any other issue involving various interest groups. Many groups and individuals have a tangible or symbolically important stake in the status quo; few groups have so direct an interest in change. Ethnic groups, refugee agencies, government bureaucracies with their designated areas. employers (from those wishing housemaids to multinationals trying to move key executives), religious groups, and unions all have a stake in a family reunion and refugee-oriented policy that is also relatively generous. One could add lawyers to the roster. with their stake in the li:'gislative complexity that provides their living. Surely the list of partisans could be expanded. On the opposite side, a list of interested parties is ·hard lo draw up. Supporters of employer sanctions and greater emphasis on labor impacts orten point to the impact of legal, and especially illegal, migration on women, the handicapped, blacks, Hispanics, and other disadvantaged minorities. Nevertheless, one docs not sec the National Organization for Women, the Urban League, or the NAACP in the forefront of support for the labor impact argument. Minority organizations are sophisticated political actors and need no spokespersons. Explanations to the effect that minority groups really support the labor-oriented approach but hesitate to upset delicate interminority coalitions (that is, black and Hispanic coalitions) not only ignore women and the handicapped, but also arc implicitly admitting immigration policy and the specific labor-oriented approach arc either not on or far down on the agendas of such organizations. If proposals for major shifts in policy (large reductions in the ceiling or a labor-oriented selection system) do not garner support of groups that arc directly affected, who does support them? 1l1e answer is groups that define themselves as public interest groups-guardians of society-such as conservationists, veterans organizations, and groups concerned with population growth, as well as some parts of organized labor, but notably not the unions . . . most directly affected by migration, especially illegal migration. Such groups are opposed not only by the directly affected groups but by guardians of society of a different type-civil rights and public law groups, for example. The result has be~n a familiar scenario, a strategic battle of the supporters of current pohcy holding off change to protect their advantages, vers~s groups staging a prolonged_seige to chip away al current policy and h.opmg to tak~ advantage of fortuitous openings, like those provided by a poor economy, a Mariel boatlift, and anti-immigrant feelings that accompany such episodes,.~·.· The status quo'supporters have the advantage due to their stake in the issue~ the ~assage of time, an?_lhe abs nce of the catastrophe to be expected 7 . from 1;11~as1?ns or floods of ab ens predicted by the opposition. In this regard, . the Civil Rights movement has declawed some of the rhetoric of an earlier time about the qliaHty and value of racial, ethnic, religious, and foreign-born groups. The supporters of a cutback in numbers, a more labor-oriented policy, and a heavier reliance on an enforcement approach have the advantage~ ~f_being on the.offensive beca~se of the state of the economy and the poss1b1lity o~ s~dden mfluxes (as the Cuban boatlift) to mobilize support. Of course, th~re IS also the effect of change due to elections-:-for example, Senator Simpson rather than Senator Kennedy as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration. · . Th~ we~kness of the administrative and managerial system with respect to unnugrabon, the lack of cohesion on policy formulation on immigration in ) the Executive, and the proprietary sense of Congress over immigration means t~~re is no st~ong~nterfortheemergence ofimmigration policy. There is no v1s1~le'. credible, high stat~s agen~ responsible for monitoring immigration ~nd •.ts unpacts and ?ev 1opmgpohcy for government action. A proposal for an ~mm1gration ~o~nctl with preCJsely that charge was narrowly defeated in the :)elect Comm1ss1on and the concept has some strong congressional backing. ' While the Select Commission was a delaying tactic in the minds of some iNho created it, it has set in motion a process to introduce change. It is not at ~I clear_tl~at immi;r~tion_and refugee policy will be fundamentally changed. 1treamhnmg admm1strabve procedures and tinkering with preferences are ?robably in the.offing; These are not unimportant for they affect the lives of ieoplein this country and abroad. What is not so clearis whether fun dam en- ' al shifts in policy will take place in the near future. The issue is nothing less '-. . . . . . ..,,· . than the future of U.S. pluralism-not just the shape, the tint or the accent of U.S. society, but the values that define us. whatever our ancestry. as a 7 _ people. This content downloaded from 24.4.24.213 on Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:24:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �f~om: Kevin F. McCarthy and David F. Ronfeldt, ''Immigration as an Intrusive Global Flow; li New )?erspective," In Mary M. Kritz, editor, U,S, IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE )?OLICY 1. 1983, Lexington, MA: Lexington,Books, pp, 381~399, The cu,;ent Context of Turbulence U.S. immigration policy is characterized by the failure of current regulatory policies; an inability to develop a comprehensive alternative policy and a consequent reliance on crisis management: and moral ambivalence toward immigration and refugee issues. Th: fa~lurc_of c~rr~nt policies directly rcnects the incrcasingdirliculty of regulatmg 1mm1grat1on nows to the United States and is succinctly described by the statement made by an a!lorncy general, "We have lost control of our borders.·· This loss of control is evident in the nows of illegal migrants across U.S. bor?ers (m?st notably, but by no means exclusively, from Mexico). in the massive seahrt of Cubans from Mariel Bay. in the less dramatic but far more regular stream of Haitians to Florida, and in the admission of tens of thousands of Southeast Asian refugees above the established refugee q'uota. Each of these nows underscores the contradiction of a global superpower unable to exercise control over its own borders. However, this contradiction can be viewed as a natural by-product or a system or global ~o;vs that incrca~<:5 the interdependence among natii,ns and reduces the w11lmgncss and ability of a superpower to use its power to control the outcomes of the system. Indeed. the multiple objectives served by such globa) nows, and the spillover effects they generate, blur distinctions ?ctween foreign and domestic policy, and excite a broad range of domestic mt~rest groups. This mingling of objectives, issues and interests heightens policyma~:rs' awareness of the complexity and political ramifications of their dcc1s1ons. . . ~e U.S. treatment of Mexican immigration exemplifies the way in wl)l~h mterdependence among nations effectively limits any single nation"s ab1hty ~o control flows. Flows of migrants from Mexico have been arriving in the United States for a long time because they served the interests of both count~ies. They supplied the cheap labor necessary for economic develop• '."cnt m_ the Southwest, and they relieved the pressures of underemployment m Mexico_government efforts to stem this flow by closing the border have trad1t1onally responded to U.S. internal economic needs. However. the _Dnited St~tes is unlikely to consider closing the border now, as it did dun~g Opc~at1o_n W~tb~ck _in 1954, b~cause there is increasing recognition that '.llcgal 1mm1gratmn 1s simply one issue in the broader contcxl or U.S.Mexican relations and that reciprocal vulnerabilities are involved. U.S. desire to secure a stable supply of oil during a period of uncertain supplies. to insure a stable political environment in a neighbor nation, and to nurture industrial development in our border areas has made us increasingly scnsi- _u.s. . live to Mexico's economic need to export its surplus labor. Moreover. U.S. industrial and agricultural interests that rely on immigrant labor, together with a growing Mexican-American populatio? in the Un!ted ~ta_tcs, have expanded the number of domestic groups with a stake m this_ issue ~nd reduced the chances of developing a consensus on a comprehensive policy. The cases of Cuban and Southeast Asian refugees provide striking examples of how global nows may have unanticipated longer-term consequences and tend to create situations in which foreign policy decisions produce domestic ramifications. Both of these refugee flows originated as unanticipated results of foreign policy actions, and both created situations in which the United States was unwilling or unable to stop the flow once its domestic effect began to be felt. The reasons for the apparent inability to regulate these flows differ somewhat by case: inability to control the flow at its SOU{Ce (Cuban); concern for the effect of refugees on friendly first-asylum countries (Southeast Asian); sensibility to the reaction that stopping the flow would produce among previously settled refugees (Cuban); and humanitarian concerns (both groups). However, both cases demonstrate the far-reaching and often unintended spillover effects such flows can generate, as well as the multiplicity of policy objectives they affect. The global flow perspective also suggests why the formulation of a comprehensive immigration policy is so difficult and why officials often rely instead on crisis management. Because the call for a change in policy is typically motivated by the spillover effects of specific flows, there is a built-in time lag between the start of the flow and the call for policy. During this lag the spillover effects spread, the number of policy areas affected increases, and the number of concerned interests multiplies. As a result, the likelihood of reaching consensus on a comprehensive alternative declines. For example, policymakers would ·have faced fewer constraints in attempting to control the Mariel Bay flotilla had not that wave of Cuban refugees been preceded by several prior waves, that were by then firmly established in U.S. society,flt~, •· ·· ·· · • The·problems of time lag and policy constraints are rooted in the nature of global flows, but they are compounded by the moral ambivalence with which Americans view immigration issues. As citizens of a nation cognizant of immigrant roots and proud of its commitment to human rights, Americans are,reluctant to view immigrants and refugees as part of a flow, and'·. · ·prefer instead to consider them individuals with certain inalienable rights> This perspective collides with an equally widely held view that the United States simply cannot afford to absorb everyone who might want to come to this country, Thus, moral ambivalence is reflected in the contradictory belief in an inalienable right to emigrate without a corresponding right to imm!grate. . This content downloaded from 24.4.24.213 on Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:24:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms �This ambivalence complicates the policy process in a number of ways. For example, it contributes to the policy time Jag by focusing public atten• tion on the humanitarian aspects of refugee and immigration flows while ignoring their potential long-term effects. Thus, attempts to halt boats full of Haitian immigrants were attacked for their cold legalities. Similarly, Americans are reluctant to acknowledge that establishing refugee camps and institutional procedures to facilitate the resettlement of Southeast Asian political refugees encourages others who are more aptly described as economic refugees to take advantage of these efforts. In addition, this ambivalence imposes direct constraints on policy options. For example, both the Carter and Reagan initiatives on illegal Mexican migrants contain an· ani~ ncstyproposal For essentially humanitarian reasons. However, provisions to limit the rights of those granted amnesty, and thus discourage potential future illegals, are soundly criticized. At times these constraints become even more direct as when Federal Judge James King ruled that the INS could not deport the Haitian plaintiffs because it had not proven that their human rights would not be harmed upon their return to Haiti. This content downloaded from 24.4.24.213 on Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:24:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource U.S. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY, 1983: "Current Status of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy" and "'Immigration as an Intrusive Global Flow; A New Perspective" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kritz, Mary M. Subject The topic of the resource Immigration Law United States Description An account of the resource Both documents are excerpts from a larger work, Mary M. Kritz's U.S. IMMIGRATION AND REGUGEE POLICY, 1983. The first, "Current Status of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy" by Charles B. Keely, documents why immigration policy is so slow to change. The next, "Immigration as an Intrusive Global Flow; A New Perspective" by David F. Ronfeldt, describes U.S. immigration policy as a failure of current regulatory policies, an inability to develop a comphrehensive alternative policy and a consequent reliance of crisis management, as well as a moral ambivalence toward immigration and refugee issues. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Center for Migration Studies (U.S.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983 Type The nature or genre of the resource Policy Documents Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 011-cms105-b1f4i6 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived 98th Congress - Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1983 - Publications Language A language of the resource English