Sepora Alkozai
Politics of Immigration
Final Exam
Immigration Quotas: The Main Culprit of a Flawed System A belief shared by American politicians on both sides of the aisle is that our immigration system is flawed and in need of reform. The fact that there are an estimated 11 million immigrants living here in the United States supports that belief. Exactly why the system is broken, and how it can or should be fixed, however, is the source of disagreement between legislators. Many believe that the flaw in the system is that so many have been able to evade it, but the real flaw is in the fact that those people had to resort to doing so. What we have to do is tackle the root of the problem by finding a way to facilitate legal emigration for …show more content…
The outdated Hart-Celler Act, should be repealed or amended, so that the universal immigrant quota cap would instead be adjusted specifically for every country in the world. It should be proportioned so as to accurately reflect the flow of immigrant visa applicants from each sending country. On the reverse side, countries with a much smaller pool of prospective immigrants to the U.S. should have a relatively lower cap. This would then allow applicants from countries such as Mexico or India, with the highest rates of emigrants, to have an equal opportunity at being granted a visas as an applicant from, say France. Such quotas may be adjusted year to year to reflect the changes in immigration trends and patterns. Furthermore, the quota should be even more relaxed for countries with hostile climates such as Yemen, where the need for visas would increase substantially, if only for a short period of time. Granted, urgent situations like those in Yemen often call for granting asylum status as an executive order (such as with the more extreme case of Syria) more than anything else, but executive orders have no staying power. A more permanent law passed by Congress allowing more people of a unstable nation to receive visas than those of a relatively more stable country is most appropriate. So, with this newly amended act that I propose should be an addendum specifying that the quotas for each …show more content…
Because such a large number of the immigrant population in the U.S. originate from Mexico, it would make sense that a big percentage of family reunification green card applications would come from Mexico as well. Conversely, the percentage of applications from France would be incredible low. So, the respective quotas from those countries should reflect those percentages. But as stated above, the prospective immigrants that have no relatives in the U.S., or employee sponsorships, are still left without a proper means to get a green card. To give those immigrants a better chance, the system of preferences should be adjusted to make room for them. Perhaps less green cards could be awarded to relatives or, better yet, the refugee quota could be removed entirely and that six percent could be instead delegated to this isolated group of immigrants. Refugees could then have the benefit of not being restricted to any quota at all. Doing those will further decrease the number of people who come to this country without any papers simply because they could not attain a
Politics of Immigration
Final Exam
Immigration Quotas: The Main Culprit of a Flawed System A belief shared by American politicians on both sides of the aisle is that our immigration system is flawed and in need of reform. The fact that there are an estimated 11 million immigrants living here in the United States supports that belief. Exactly why the system is broken, and how it can or should be fixed, however, is the source of disagreement between legislators. Many believe that the flaw in the system is that so many have been able to evade it, but the real flaw is in the fact that those people had to resort to doing so. What we have to do is tackle the root of the problem by finding a way to facilitate legal emigration for …show more content…
The outdated Hart-Celler Act, should be repealed or amended, so that the universal immigrant quota cap would instead be adjusted specifically for every country in the world. It should be proportioned so as to accurately reflect the flow of immigrant visa applicants from each sending country. On the reverse side, countries with a much smaller pool of prospective immigrants to the U.S. should have a relatively lower cap. This would then allow applicants from countries such as Mexico or India, with the highest rates of emigrants, to have an equal opportunity at being granted a visas as an applicant from, say France. Such quotas may be adjusted year to year to reflect the changes in immigration trends and patterns. Furthermore, the quota should be even more relaxed for countries with hostile climates such as Yemen, where the need for visas would increase substantially, if only for a short period of time. Granted, urgent situations like those in Yemen often call for granting asylum status as an executive order (such as with the more extreme case of Syria) more than anything else, but executive orders have no staying power. A more permanent law passed by Congress allowing more people of a unstable nation to receive visas than those of a relatively more stable country is most appropriate. So, with this newly amended act that I propose should be an addendum specifying that the quotas for each …show more content…
Because such a large number of the immigrant population in the U.S. originate from Mexico, it would make sense that a big percentage of family reunification green card applications would come from Mexico as well. Conversely, the percentage of applications from France would be incredible low. So, the respective quotas from those countries should reflect those percentages. But as stated above, the prospective immigrants that have no relatives in the U.S., or employee sponsorships, are still left without a proper means to get a green card. To give those immigrants a better chance, the system of preferences should be adjusted to make room for them. Perhaps less green cards could be awarded to relatives or, better yet, the refugee quota could be removed entirely and that six percent could be instead delegated to this isolated group of immigrants. Refugees could then have the benefit of not being restricted to any quota at all. Doing those will further decrease the number of people who come to this country without any papers simply because they could not attain a