This paper traces the history of U.S. immigration policy from its origins in 1790 through modern reform efforts, analyzing the structural, budgetary, and political factors that complicate policy implementation. The paper examines how the Department of Homeland Security's organizational structure, human resource verification systems, and political divisions between Congress and the executive branch have hindered reform. It also addresses ethical concerns surrounding income inequality, labor exploitation, and discrimination, while recommending public administration strategies—including policy integration, stakeholder engagement, and emphasis on ethics—to improve immigration reform outcomes.
The term "immigration reform" collectively refers to all efforts undertaken by a country to amend abuses and reduce faults in its immigration policy. These efforts can be geared toward either promoting and encouraging immigration or reducing and eliminating it. A perfect example of the former is the UK's promotion of the absorption of foreign-educated health specialists in its National Health Service (Dodds, 2012). The U.S., however, has almost consistently run an anti-immigration policy. Throughout American history, numerous reform efforts have been undertaken since the 18th century to reduce the number of aliens illegally or legally crossing into the U.S. through the country's border points. Most of these efforts were particularly accelerated after the 9/11 tragedy; however, successful implementation has been hampered by a volatile public mood, political conflict, and an overall lack of public understanding of the constitutional, social, and economic elements surrounding immigration.
Studies have shown that although Americans harbor strong views and beliefs about immigration, most do not clearly understand how the country's immigration policy operates. These feelings, rather than being driven by genuine, well-informed concerns, are often driven by fear that high immigration rates could change the cultural and traditional aspects of the native community. To move forward as a nation toward effective immigration reforms, it is crucial to give Americans insight into the actual issues surrounding the country's immigration policy.
Immigration has been an object of legislation in the U.S. since 1790, when Congress enacted a statute permitting aliens to obtain U.S. citizenship. As the number of immigrants rose, Congress enacted a law in 1875 prohibiting the immigration of prostitutes and criminals. Later, in 1891, Congress established the Immigration Service, which made the federal government responsible for processing immigrants seeking admission as U.S. citizens. This made immigration policy an object of both legislation and administrative policy.
Immigrant numbers increased dramatically after World War I. In response, Congress enacted the Quota Law, which accepted or rejected visa applications based on quotas assigned to different nationalities. The quota framework gave preference to immigrants with rare but useful job skills and those with immediate family members already in the U.S. In 1980, refugees were recognized as a vulnerable group, and the Refugee Act was enacted, granting the president the power to determine the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2002 and charged with protecting the country's points of entry from illegal aliens.
The Quota Law continues to be used today, emphasizing four fundamental aspects: (1) reuniting families, (2) admission of persons with rare job skills relevant to U.S. economic growth, (3) protection of refugees, and (4) achieving country-of-origin diversity (Kandel, 2013). Family-based admissions currently account for almost two-thirds of all legal admissions into the U.S. In 2012, for instance, 680,799 persons—roughly 66% of 1.03 million Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) admitted that year—were admitted on the basis of family ties, with 70% of them as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (Kandel, 2013). Admissions on "immediate relative" grounds rose by a significant 12.3% between 2009 and 2012, with the Dominican Republic, India, China, the Philippines, and Mexico accounting for the highest numbers. By the end of 2012, 4.3 million persons still stood on the visa queue awaiting LPR admission based on family-based preferences (Kandel, 2013).
LPR admissions in other categories—employment-related preferences, refugees, asylum-seekers, and diversity grounds—have also reported notable increases, rising by almost 25% from just over 0.8 million in 2000 to 1.03 million in 2012 (data obtained from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics at the Department of Homeland Security).
Illegal immigrant statistics show persistent challenges. Although policies such as increasing the number of border patrol officers and enhancing screening technology have been strengthened, the numbers of persons living in the country illegally remain relatively high. 2012 estimates by the DHS place the number of unauthorized immigrants at 11.4 million, representing a slight decrease from 11.4 million in 2011 (Baker & Rytina, 2012).
Experts have raised concerns about the high numbers of foreign nationals gaining admission into the U.S., both legally and illegally. Unauthorized immigrants cost the government approximately $11 billion annually in public healthcare costs, food assistance, and public education alone (Warren & Warren, 2013). A significant 34% of unauthorized immigrants have no health insurance, compared to only 13% of the general population. The greatest burden in medical expenses comes from emergency care for regular illness and childbirth. According to Jack Martin, FAIR Director of Special Projects, costs for delivery stand at approximately $10,000 per birth, with a greater proportion paid by Medicaid, a federal program designed to help economically disadvantaged Americans. Martin believes these costs can be minimized or eliminated through effective measures to prevent unauthorized immigrants from entering the country (Warren & Warren, 2013).
Beyond healthcare costs, experts have shown that immigrants often accept lower wage rates than recommended for particular positions. Consequently, private business owners frequently consider them a more attractive option for profit maximization than qualified native candidates. It is these concerns that have sparked researchers' interest in illegal immigration reform. There is consensus that as long as America remains a relatively prosperous economy, it will be a target destination for both legal and illegal immigrants. Whilst legal immigration has been largely controlled, further reforms are needed to address unauthorized immigration.
The Department of Homeland Security acts as the nation's watchdog, charged with securing the nation's borders and points of entry from external threats. In its mission statement, the agency reiterates its commitment to keeping America's borders secure by ensuring that unauthorized persons and items that could compromise America's peace and stability do not enter the country (DHS, 2015). However, experts have argued that the agency's organizational structure impedes its ability to effectively carry out its core functions, particularly immigration enforcement.
Following its creation, the government initiated a reorganization plan to place all departments and agencies historically charged with securing borders under the DHS. As a result, the Bureau of Border Security and the Customs Service were split and reconfigured into the BTS Directorate as two new bureaus: CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The government essentially merged Customs and Immigration Enforcement into one agency at the border and separated Customs and Immigration Investigations into another.
CBP now comprises the Office of Field Operations and the Office of Border Patrol. The former is composed mainly of former customs, Department of Agriculture, and INS inspectors who now carry out functions formerly handled by three different agencies. ICE consists of former customs and INS investigators collectively charged with enforcing customs and immigration laws.
This reorganization has created concerns that investigators and inspectors may not be receiving adequate management support due to bureaucratic barriers that hamper efficient information sharing among departments. Additionally, budgetary allocation concerns have arisen because of the inexact division of allocations within the INS, which was divided into three separate segments—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ICE, and CBP. This has resulted in budgetary shortfalls that often force ICE to release unauthorized aliens or impose hiring freezes to remain within budget constraints.
A third concern is that by reorganizing originally independent agencies into two large bureaus, the government impeded effective functioning, particularly because these agencies have distinct missions. The INS, for instance, was merged into ICE, yet its mission bears almost nothing in common with the orientation and priorities of the latter. Prior to reorganization, the INS was under the Department of Justice, whereas Customs was under the Treasury Department. Reorganization, therefore, created functional dysfunctions that have impeded the DHS's successful implementation of illegal immigration reforms.
Human resource departments have been encouraged to strengthen their employee verification systems to ensure they do not recruit illegal aliens (Graham, 2012). The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) prohibits employers from knowingly recruiting or hiring illegal aliens. Employers are required to verify that any potential employee is permitted to work in the U.S. Employers found in violation risk paying hefty fines of up to $2,000. Most verification procedures involve checking employees' social security numbers against the government database to assess their eligibility to work.
Ethical concerns have, however, been raised against such verification, with employers being accused of subjecting to verification procedures only those employees who "don't seem American," such as Black Americans and people of Asian origin. Despite these concerns, and the fact that such policies work against employers' profit-maximizing motives by denying them access to cheap labor, the government maintains that verification is the only way to make the U.S. a less attractive destination for illegal aliens. Graham (2012) expresses that for an organizational employee verification policy to be effective, it must use the latest technology, ensure fair enforcement, be reliable and accurate, and incorporate shared responsibility among employers, employees, and government. However, human resource aspects of immigration reform continue to be largely ineffective, as employers often prioritize compliance for cheap labor over national security.
In FY2016 budget proposals, President Obama allocated $48 billion to the DHS, representing a significant 9.1% increase from FY2015 proposals. The proposal gave ICE an additional $27.6 million to cater for the transportation of unaccompanied minors found crossing into the country illegally at the Mexican border and beefed up CBP's IT budget by $373 million. With these additional funds, the DHS was expected to strengthen its anti-terrorism efforts, upgrade cybersecurity programs, and employ more border agents, particularly at the U.S.-Mexico border. Experts expected the agency to channel part of this budgetary allocation toward enhancing employer verification initiatives, with CBP expected to widen its trusted traveler program to aid in efficient tracking and processing of incoming travelers.
The president's support may provide relief for the DHS, but officers still had to navigate the political battlefield between Republicans and Democrats. At that time, thousands of Secret Service agents, customs personnel, Coast Guard members, border patrol agents, and airport security screeners faced salary delays. The impact on morale and immigration reforms remained significant.
The Stopgap bill, geared at expanding the budgetary allocation to the DHS to prevent shutdown, sailed through Congress amidst dramatic and chaotic confrontations and was signed into law. The passage triggered conflict between Republicans who supported the bill and those who opposed it. Tichenor (2012) indicates that around 200 Republicans voted for the bill, creating deep divisions with their conservative counterparts who voted against it.
Congress became sharply divided, with most controversy centered not on funding but on President Obama's controversial immigration plan, which granted millions of illegal immigrants work permits and deportation relief. A section of Republicans maintained that the president's arrangement was misinformed and called for reversal of the measures as a precondition for DHS funding. Another section appeared to have backed down as Democrats put forth plans to pass a stand-alone, annual-funding bill without immigration provisions.
The situation in the Senate was no better. Senate Democrats termed the president's immigration policy a non-starter and intended to block it. Recently, they blocked another bill undoing the immigration measures proposed by President Obama. As debate, finger-pointing, and political posturing gained momentum, Americans awaited legislative resolution of the stalemate. Democrats accused Republicans of interfering with DHS operations and compromising national security amidst increasing threats from ISIS. Republicans lambasted President Obama for failing to safeguard the Southern Border (Camayd-Freixas, 2013) and acting beyond his mandate by instituting his executive immigration order. Experts expected the president would draw on corporate support to maintain his immigration policy and restore DHS funding.
Experts argued there was more to the debate than met the eye, describing it as a manifestation of misplaced priorities centered on the immigrant Latino population. Whereas President Obama was under pressure from newly-built pro-immigrant movements whose members gave him massive support in the last presidential election, Republican legislators sought to block these well-organized movements from threatening their party's existence and political future.
These conflicting objectives played out in the war against terror, a touchstone in the immigration debate. Guided by the historical perception that terrorists were smuggled into the country through illegal routes, the government made border security a strategy to lock out foreign terrorists through constant surveillance. However, it became apparent that most terrorists actually enter through legal routes. As a result, the war on terror gradually transformed into a war on immigrants.
Federal Immigration Law outlines who an alien is and what obligations, duties, and rights are associated with that status. It forms the basis for determining who enters, who is admitted, when they leave, and so on. Any immigration policies must operate within the framework of immigration law. The Constitution grants Congress complete legislative authority over immigration, with presidential power extending only to refugee policy, and courts often ruling the issue as nonjusticiable. Those opposed to President Obama's recent immigration policy based their arguments on the fact that by issuing the controversial executive order, he overstepped his constitutional mandate. States have very limited power over immigration as outlined in federal law. Supporters of this arrangement argue that by granting Congress unqualified power over immigration, the Constitution avoids confusion that would result if individual states controlled their own immigration policy. Moreover, such an arrangement has been deemed crucial for national self-definition and the formation of the nation's identity.
Ethics of Income Inequalities: Studies have linked the widening rich-poor gap in America to the increasing immigrant population. According to Carens (2013), mass immigration leads to increased labor supply and higher numbers of people willing to work at lower pay. With this, incomes for owners of factors of production increase while workers' incomes remain fairly stable, giving rise to income inequalities. Illegal immigration reforms are therefore necessary to restore labor market stability.
"Balancing equity, security, and cultural tensions in policy formulation"
"Policy integration, stakeholder involvement, and institutional ethics emphasis"
Statistics have shown notable declines in the numbers of immigrants entering the country without relevant documentation. Despite this trend, the numbers remain relatively high. Whilst legal immigration has been somewhat regulated, much still needs to be done in illegal immigration. Effective strategies must be adopted to address this issue, including policy integration, involvement of both sides in decision-making, and emphasizing ethics and integrity in policy implementation.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.