Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Great Seal of the United States
Long title An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
Acronyms (colloquial) INA of 1965
Nicknames Hart–Celler Act
Enacted by the 89th United States Congress
Effective June 30, 1968
Public law Pub.L. 89–236
Statutes at Large 79 Stat. 911
Codification
Acts amended Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Titles amended 8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended 8 U.S.C. ch. 12 (§§ 1101, 1151–1157, 1181–1182, 1201, 1254–1255, 1259, 1322, 1351)
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2580 by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY)
  • Committee consideration by Judiciary
  • Passed the House on August 25, 1965 (318–95)
  • Passed the Senate on September 22, 1965 (76–18)
  • Agreed to by the House on September 30, 1965 (320–70) and by the on  
  • Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 3, 1965

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The new law maintained the per-country limits, but it also created preference visa categories that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota. However, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and "special immigrants" had no restrictions.[1]

Background[edit]

The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa while it gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.[2] The United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual’s place of birth. Abroad, former military allies and new independent nations aimed to delegitimize discriminatory immigration, naturalization and regulations through international organizations like the United Nations.[3] In the United States, the national-based formula had been under scrutiny for a number of years. In 1952, President Truman directed the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to conduct an investigation and produce a report on the current immigration regulations. The report, Whom We Shall Welcome, served as the blue print for the Hart–Celler Act.[4] At the height of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the restrictive immigration laws were seen as an embarrassment by, among others, President John F. Kennedy, who called the then-quota-system "nearly intolerable".[5] After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

The bill still prohibited the entry into the country of "sexual deviants", including homosexuals. By doing so it crystallized the policy of the INS to reject homosexual prospective immigrants on the grounds that they were "mentally defective", or had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority". The Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against gay people.[6]

Provisions[edit]

The Hart–Celler Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act), while it upheld many provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924. It maintained per-country limits, which had been a feature of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s, and it developed preference categories.[7]

  • One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.
  • It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills.
  • Immediate relatives and "special immigrants" were not subject to numerical restrictions. Some of the "special immigrants" include ministers, former employees of the U.S. government, foreign medical graduates, among others.
  • For the first time, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was limited.
  • It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
  • Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States through other means as well like those seeking temporary asylum.

Immigration and Nationality Act - Wages under Foreign Certification[edit]

As per the rules under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. organizations are permitted to employ foreign workers either temporarily or permanently to fulfill certain types of job requirement. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) under the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the body that usually provides certification to employers forcing them to hire foreign workers in order to bridge qualified and skilled labor gap in certain business areas. Workers willing to perform in a job in return of wages that either meet or exceed the present wage paid by the employers for the same occupation in the intended area of employment. However, some unique rules are applied to each category of visas. They are as follow:

  • H-1B and H-1B1 Specialty (Professional) Workers should have a pay, as per the prevailing wage - an average wage that is paid to a person employed in the same occupation in the area of employment; or that the employer pays its workers the actual wage having similar skills and qualifications.
  • H-2A Agricultural Workers should have the highest pay in accordance to the (a) Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), (b) the present rate for a particular crop or area, or (c) the state or federal minimum wage. The law also stipulates requirements like employer-sponsored meals and transportation of the employees as well as restrictions on deducting from the workers’ wages.
  • H-2B Non-agricultural Workers should receive a pay that is in accordance to the prevailing wage (mean wage paid to a worker employed in a similar occupation in the concerned area of employment).
  • D-1 Crewmembers (longshore work) should be paid the current wage (mean wage paid to a person employed in a similar occupation in the respective area of employment).
  • Permanent Employment of Aliens should be employed after the employer has agreed to provide and pay as per the prevailing wage trends and that it should be decided on the basis of one of the many alternatives provisioned under the said Act. This rule has to be followed the moment the Alien has been granted with permanent residency or the Alien has been admitted in the United States so as to take the required position.[8]

Legislative history[edit]

October 3, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson visits the Statue of Liberty to sign the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The Hart–Celler Act was widely supported in Congress. Senator Philip A. Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee.[9] Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18.[9] In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes.[11] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset".[12]

Michael A. Feighan and other conservative Democrats had insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States and consequently a more ethnically diverse population.[13][14]

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying, "This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country".[15]

Long-term impact[edit]

The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, scholars point out that the immigration act shifted the ethnic composition of immigrants.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe.

Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971-1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent. Not only did it change the ethnic makeup of immigration, but it also greatly increased the number of immigrants—immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970–80, and to 39 percent from 1980-90.[20]

The Latin American population overall has also dramatically increased since 1965, though this was more due to the various unexpected results of this act rather than due to this act itself. One of the main reasons was the introduction of immigration quotas to Latin America, whereas there were previously no immigration quotas for the Western Hemisphere in the National Origins Formula.[21][22]

It is estimated that by the year 2042, white people not referring to themselves as Hispanic will no longer constitute a majority but rather only a plurality of the population of the United States. Minority groups, led by Hispanic Americans (mainly Mexican Americans), Black Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans would together outnumber non-Hispanic White Americans.[23]

Since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the new immigrants have encountered both opportunities and challenges. Many immigrants have been able to take advantage of the abundance of opportunities in the United States. However, immigrants also face hostility based on the rapid change of the United States' ethnic and cultural makeup, debates on the economic impact of immigration, and the presence of illegal immigrants.[24]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Sarah Starkweather. "US immigration legislation online". University of Washington, Bothell Library. Retrieved January 1, 2012. 
  2. ^ "U.S. Immigration Before 1965". Retrieved 2016-09-03. 
  3. ^ "The Geopolitical Origins of the U.S. Immigration Acts of 1965". migrationpolicy.org. Retrieved 2016-03-01. 
  4. ^ "Whom we shall welcome; report". archive.org. Retrieved 2016-03-01. 
  5. ^ "235 - Remarks to Delegates of the American Committee on Italian Migration". American Presidency Project. June 11, 1963. 
  6. ^ Tracy J. Davis. "Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States". Human Rights Brief. 6 (3). 
  7. ^ Keely, Charles B. (Winter 1979). "The Development of U.S. Immigration Policy Since 1965". Journal Of International Affairs 33, no. 2. 
  8. ^ #http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/wages-foreign-workers.htm Wages under Foreign Labor Certification Retrieved 3rd December 2015.
  9. ^ a b Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. "Immigration and Nationalization Act". The Great Society Congress. Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. Retrieved 6 April 2016. 
  10. ^ Keith Poole. "Senate Vote #232 (Sep 22, 1965)". Civic Impulse, LLC. 
  11. ^ Keith Poole. "House Vote #177 (Sep 30, 1965)". Civic Impulse, LLC. 
  12. ^ Bill Ong Hing (2012), Defining America: Through Immigration Policy, Temple University Press, p. 95, ISBN 978-1-59213-848-7 
  13. ^ Tom Gjelten, Laura Knoy (2016-01-21). NPR's Tom Gjelten on America's Immigration Story (Radio broadcast). The Exchange. New Hampshire Public Radio. Retrieved 2016-06-07. 
  14. ^ Gjelten, Tom (2015-08-12). "Michael Feighan and LBJ". Archived from the original on 2016-05-06. Retrieved 2016-06-07. 
  15. ^ "Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill, Liberty Island, New York". October 3, 1965. Retrieved January 1, 2012. 
  16. ^ Johnson, L.B., (1965). President Lyndon B. Johnson's Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill. Liberty Island, New York October 3, 1965 transcript at lbjlibrary.
  17. ^ Jennifer Ludden. "1965 immigration law changed face of America". NPR. 
  18. ^ Ngai, Mae M. (2004). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princenton: Princeton University Press. pp. 266–268. ISBN 978-0-691-16082-5. 
  19. ^ Law, Anna O. (Summer 2002). "The Diversity Visa Lottery - A Cycle of Unintended Consequences in United States Immigration Policy". Journal Of American Ethnic History 21, no. 4. 
  20. ^ Lind, Michael (1995). The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution. New York: The Free Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-684-82503-8. 
  21. ^ Massey, Douglas S. (2015-09-25). "How a 1965 immigration reform created illegal immigration". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-04-20. 
  22. ^ Massey, Douglas S.; Durand, Jorge; Pren, Karen A. (2016-03-01). "Why Border Enforcement Backfired". American Journal of Sociology. 121 (5): 1557–1600. doi:10.1086/684200. ISSN 0002-9602. 
  23. ^ Roberts, Sam (2008-08-14). "Minorities in U.S. set to become majority by 2042". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-06-05. 
  24. ^ Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, Portland State University (August 2011). "Immigration & naturalization act of 1965: Origin of modern American society". Retrieved January 1, 2012. 

External links[edit]