Chapter 1 — Introduction
It should come as no surprise that Hispanic people are recognizable personalities in many areas of American society. In entertainment and sports, Hispanics have become cultural icons. Hispanic elected officials are prominent participants in American politics. Nonetheless, the contributions of America’s largest minority still are accorded scant attention in relation to the variety of the accomplishments and the impact they have had on all aspects of society. This site pays tribute to the generations of Hispanics who have positively influenced and enriched the U.S. In so doing, it is intended to shape how people, notably Hispanics themselves, think about this community now and in the future.
This site is an introduction to the Hispanic population in the U.S. It provides basic terminology used to reference this group, information about the size of this population, and a review of attempts by the government of the U.S. to regulate immigration of Hispanic people.
Part I addresses two fundamental matters. First, a rationale is provided for use of the term Hispanic to identify the population upon which this site is focused. Second, the number of Hispanics in the U.S. is reported as is its proportion of the total population in the country.
Spanish speaking people inhabited portions of what is now considered the southwestern U.S before these territories became incorporated as states such as Arizona, California, and New Mexico. But growth of the populations in these states as well as the entire U.S. is attributable to immigration from Latin America. Part II reports the size, composition, and economic impact of the immigrant population in the U.S. Hispanic immigration, and principally that from Mexico, is the focus of Part III.
Part IV, Regulation of Immigration, provides information about the various legislative and administrative approaches that have been used to regulate immigration in the U.S. Despite efforts over many years, Congress has been unable to agree on a comprehensive law to reform existing immigration practices. Consequently, immigration has largely been controlled by means of presidential executive orders, the substance of which is greatly influenced by the political party of the commander in chief.
Part V offers a brief summary of the articles that support or oppose immigration. The organizations that put forward these favorable or unfavorable arguments are identified. A brief concluding statement is contained in Part VI.
Part I – Definitions and Demographics
Given their diverse backgrounds, dissimilar languages, and different skin colors, disagreements have arisen regarding an appropriate way to refer to members of this large, diverse group of people. To begin, ‘Hispanic’ is a term referring to ethnicity, not race. Cultural characteristics such as language, accent, religion, social customs, and food and dietary preferences define an individual’s ethnicity. By contrast, physical characteristics such as skin color, hair color and texture, eye color, facial features and physical build identify a person as being a member of a specific racial group. Persons categorized as Hispanic can be of any race.
“Hispanic” is a general term used to identify all native speakers of Spanish or people with Spanish-speaking ancestry. Because many cultural differences exist among members of this broad ethnic community, subgroups have expressed preferences for more specific terms to identify themselves. For example, one large subgroup of Hispanics refers to itself as “Latino.”
These are people of Latin American origin or ancestry. Some subgroups prefer to use even more specific labels when referring to their identity. For example, many ethnic titles based on nationality or country or origin are preferred by about half of Hispanic adults who describe themselves as Mexican, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Salvadoran, or Cuban.
Despite such communal preferences, 39 percent of Hispanic adults most often describe themselves as “Hispanic” or “Latino,” the pan-ethnic terms used most often to describe this group in the U.S. It is common to use the terms Hispanic and Latino interchangeably as does the U.S. Census Bureau. Similarly, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget does not differentiate between the categories. “Hispanic or Latino” are both defined as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. With no prejudice toward favoring the members of any identifiable ethnic subgroup, these formal titles, Hispanic and Latino, will be used as synonyms on this site.
In 2019, over 60 million Hispanics lived in the U.S., representing approximately 18 percent of the population. Hispanics are the largest minority in America. Only Mexico has a larger Hispanic population than the U.S. In fact, the U.S. has a larger Spanish-speaking population than many Hispanic countries, including Peru and Venezuela. Based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics will represent approximately 21 percent of the population by 2030 and 28 percent by 2060. Hispanics accounted for about half (52%) of all U.S. population growth between 2010 and 2019 despite a decrease in the annual number of births to Hispanic women and a decline in immigration.
Part II – Immigration to the United States
According to the Migration Policy Institute, “Few forces have shaped the modern world more than migration.” Building this country, even before it became the U.S., was begun by immigrants in the 17th century. The Pilgrims and other religious groups were immigrants fleeing oppression in European countries and seeking economic opportunity. Since then, the U.S. has benefited from the new energy and ingenuity that immigrants have brought. In 2018, the U.S. was home to close to 45 million immigrants, more than any other country in the world.
As of 2020, foreign born residents of the U.S. made up14 percent of the population. Of these people, more than 50 percent have been naturalized, the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The majority of all immigrants in the U.S. is naturalized.
Immigrants are a vital force in the U.S. economy. With regard to employment, one in six U.S. workers is an immigrant. Immigrant employment is noteworthy in a variety of occupations and in industries throughout the economy. As consumers, immigrants contribute more than a trillion dollars to the U.S. economy. Immigrant economic activity produces billions of dollars in tax revenue, particularly as a consequence of the billions resulting from their entrepreneurial business ventures. See also Quick Immigration Statistics: United States.
In recent years, the growth of the U.S. immigrant population has been declining. Furthermore, the composition of immigrants has shifted. After 1970, Mexico is the most common country of origin for U.S. immigrants, representing 25 percent of the immigrant population. However, recent arrivals are more likely to be Asians, with India and China the most prominent. Immigrants from other Hispanic countries also have increased (e.g., the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, and El Salvador). For a broader reading of immigration programs in the U.S., see Immigration to the United States after 1945, a well-researched article prepared by a noted scholar.
Part III – Hispanic Immigration
Beginning in the 1840s when gold was discovered in California, Hispanic immigration to the U.S. is largely the story of economic migrants, i.e., unskilled, manual laborers seeking to improve their lives. The hope of finding work with American employers for higher wages was considered the best opportunity to escape poverty and unemployment in their country of origin. There has also been a substantial number of Hispanics migrating to America’s borders seeking asylum from crime or political persecution in their home countries. For example, the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act recognized that Cubans fleeing a communist government had strong asylum cases and, therefore, were eligible for permanent residency in the U.S.
The flow of immigrants seeking asylum and those pursuing employment trying to cross America’s southern border varies from year to year. Economic factors and criminality conditions in their home country determine the size and composition of the flow. Further, the proportion of single men and families in the flow, many bringing children, differs depending on these conditions. For example, regional crises stemming from rampant corruption and violence in Central America in 2018 resulted in a surge of asylum seekers, especially families hoping to protect their children.
Immigration regulation is a topic that shapes the lives of Hispanics in the U.S. In 2017, approximately 35 percent of Hispanics living in the U.S. were immigrants and 32 percent had one or both parents who migrated to the U.S. from another country. A little over a tenth of the nation’s 60 million Hispanics are undocumented (or unauthorized) immigrants (7.6 million). In a December survey, 45% of U.S. Hispanic adults said they personally know someone who is in the country illegally. The same survey found that 44% of Hispanics said they are concerned that they themselves, a family member or close friend, could be deported. Calls to deport undocumented workers overlook the fact that most are integrated into the U.S. economy. Removing all undocumented workers from the workforce would damage every industry, with long-run losses to GDP in the tens of billions of dollars annually for every industry.
Mexican immigrants are the fourth largest group of college-educated immigrants in the U.S., following those from India, China, and the Philippines. Primarily because recent arrivals typically have received more education, Mexican immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 269,000 in 2000 to 678,000 in 2017. Between 2013 and 2017, approximately one in six arriving Mexicans had a college degree. By comparison, for those entering between 1996 and 2000, only one in 20 had a college degree.
The Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. has declined since the beginning of the decade. There were more than half a million fewer Mexican immigrants in the U.S. in 2018 than in 2010, representing the biggest absolute decline of all immigrant groups. The Council on Foreign Relations has provided a history of Mexican migration as well as forecasts for the future, especially as the flow is influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The economic activity of Mexican migrants in the U.S. results in remittances (money sent by someone working abroad to his or her family back home) that provide substantial financial assistance to friends and family that remain in Mexico. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, in 2020 remittances amounted to $40.6 billion, the equivalent of the combined budgets of the Mexican government’s education, health, labor, welfare and culture departments.
Additional information about Hispanic demographics, immigration, and opinion are available from the Pew Research Center, a Washington, D.C. nonpartisan think tank. To browse reports and data on Hispanic trends, select one of the four “Hispanic/Latino” subject pages from those listed.
Part IV – Regulation of Immigration
While many private citizens and humanitarian organizations have offered refuge to migrants seeking safe haven from conditions in their native lands, the U.S. government, especially during the Trump administration, has been less welcoming. Despite the many years that Congress has devoted to regulating the admission of foreigners to America, and despite the historical fact that immigration has been of significant social, economic, and cultural benefit to this country, elected representatives of both political parties recognize that the current U.S. immigration system does not function properly. Economic, security, and humanitarian concerns complicate legislating a comprehensive plan that is satisfactory to the many segments of American society with an abiding interest in immigration. Consequently, Congress has failed to agree upon legislation that is fair to the vast number of people who want to migrate to the U.S. while it is perceived as effective in preserving the well-being of American citizens.
Comprehensive immigration reform attempts to address a variety of challenging matters: demand for high- and low-skilled labor, border security, and interior enforcement. A particularly controversial problem involves the legal status of the millions of undocumented immigrants who live and work in the U.S. and, in many cases, have raised families here. Also of consequence is the fate of migrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children accompanying their parents. A significant number of Americans and their elected officials object to the presence of these people. Opponents often refer to these immigrants as “illegal aliens” who should be denied citizenship because they crossed America’s borders in violation of U.S. immigration law. Indeed, rather than granting citizenship to them, so-called amnesty in the view of the opponents, these immigrants should be deported and compelled to apply legally.
In point of fact, half or more of unauthorized immigrants are “overstayers” who do not enter the U.S. illegally at or between a port of entry. Rather, they arrive in the U.S. lawfully with a temporary, nonimmigrant visa and remain in the country after their visas expire or otherwise violate the terms of their visas.
Both comprehensive and piecemeal approaches have been tried, mostly without success in addressing all of the concerns of interested parties. The failures to craft legislative reform of immigration has meant that executive orders have been used to bring some semblance of order into the process. After presenting a number of attempts to legislate immigration reform, presidential executive actions will be addressed.
Immigration Legislation
Immigration has been a subject of intense political debate for many years in the U.S. Beginning in 1790, Congress passed a series of laws defining the years of residence required to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. However, historians generally agree that the first federal immigration law passed by the Congress was the Immigration Act of 1882. The law imposed a $.50 tax on new arrivals and banned “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges” from entering this country. U.S. immigration policy has alternated between support for more permissive and for more restrictive systems. These changes have resulted in both “great waves” of immigrants and “great lulls” with very little immigration.
It is not the intent of this presentation to discuss all instances of immigration regulation. More complete analyses of this topic can be found on two websites: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that administers the country’s naturalization and immigration system; and ,the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to understanding the world and foreign policy. Rather, the focus here is on legislation intended to directly affect Hispanic migrants attempting to enter the U.S. In furtherance of this objective, lesson plans for teaching migration within the Americas created by the Immigration and Ethnic History Society are recommended.
1. Mexican Farm Labor Agreement
Due to the importance of economic concerns about labor shortages in the U.S., from time to time narrowly focused directives or laws have been adopted to regulate the flow of Mexicans seeking employment. For example, on August 4, 1942, the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement created the Bracero program, the largest guest-worker program in U.S. history. Fashioned as a wartime emergency measure to avoid the interruption of agricultural production and minimize food price inflation, the program lasted until 1964. Unfortunately, working conditions were generally substandard. Living arrangements provided for the workers, including food and housing, were often inadequate. Wages were poor and often not paid in a timely fashion. For example, many braceros fought for years after the program ended to recover money deducted from their salaries and supposedly deposited into savings accounts in their names. Labor unrest, including strikes, were common as a result of these conditions.
2. Immigration Act of 1990
Congress created the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program in the Immigration Act of 1990. This program provides a provisional work permit and stay of deportation to immigrants from around the world. TPS recipients state that they cannot return to their country of origin due to ongoing armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary reasons. Approximately 411,000 TPS recipients lived in the U.S. as of October 2020. Even those who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for many years as a TPS recipient have no certain route to permanent residence (i.e., a green card). However, they may now be, or later become eligible for a green card on some other basis. Greater detail about TPS is available from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The American Immigration Council maintains a website that presents a summary of the provisions contained in TPS.
3. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
The IIRIRA signed by President Bill Clinton strengthened U.S. immigration laws by subjecting undocumented immigrants to criminal penalties, including deportation, if they commit a misdemeanor or a felony while in the country. The Act also toughened border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling, and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents. Agencies responsible for monitoring visa applications and visa abusers were strengthened in order to improve interior enforcement of immigration law. Lastly, the IIRIRA complicated the method of processing asylum seekers and has proven to be detrimental to the U.S. asylum system.
4. Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act
An immigration issue of special concern is the treatment of those undocumented people brought unlawfully to the U.S. as children. The DREAM Act was a federal bill introduced in Congress in 2001 that would have provided a path to permanent residency for qualified young immigrants. The term “DREAMer” was derived from the name of the bill. Dreamers, most of whom were born in Mexico, live and attend school in the U.S. They dream of a better future in America, largely as a result of their access to education. The main provision of the Act allows undocumented students access to in-state tuition (based on state law) and some forms of federal financial assistance, such as student loans and work study. In 2007, Congress finally began consideration of the Dream Act. Although several versions of the Act have been proposed, none have become law over the many years since the Act was originally introduced.
5. Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
This Act was a comprehensive bipartisan reform bill passed by the Democrat-led Senate in 2013. Introduced by the bipartisan “Gang of eight,” it afforded a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and strengthened border security measures as well as immigration enforcement inside the U.S. The Act makes it easier to admit highly skilled immigrants in scientific and technical fields. New temporary visa categories were proposed for agricultural workers and non-seasonal guest workers. Finally, the Act calls for reforms to detention and removal of immigrants. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives refused to vote on the Senate bill. Rather, the House offered a narrower bill that did not contain a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. The bill died during the second term of Barack Obama’s presidency.
6. Dream Act of 2017
This bill, introduced by both Democrat and Republican senators, offers a pathway to U.S. citizenship for undocumented migrants and for DACA (see below) or TPS recipients. Lawful permanent resident status (sometimes referred to as getting a “green card”) was possible to those who attend college, have worked for a period of time, or served in the U.S. military. That year, members of the House introduced several other legislative proposals to address the legal status of undocumented youth, most of which were variants of the Dream Act. Although some of these bills drew significant support, none became law.
7. American Dream and Promise Act (ADPA)
On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed ADPA on a strong bipartisan vote. This legislation would give Dreamers a path to citizenship. ADPA is a very inclusive bill, acknowledging the need for relief for 2.5 million immigrant youth and people with TPS or Deferred Enforced Departure (see below) without requiring that it be in exchange for more funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the Center for American Progress, if the bill became law, it would create positive social and economic impacts throughout the U.S. Although only 2.5 million individuals would be directly affected, they and their families would contribute more than $27 billion annually in federal, state, and local taxes and hold more than $75 billion in spending power. ADPA has now been pending in the Senate for more than a year.
8. U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021
In the first month of his presidency, Joseph Biden introduced a comprehensive bill to reform the nation’s immigration system. It would allow virtually all undocumented immigrants to eventually apply for citizenship while increasing the amount of legal immigration. Measures to increase security at ports of entry are included. Processing the petitions of asylum seekers would be expedited. Finally, to reduce interest in migration to the U.S., $4 billion would be invested in the economies of Central American countries. As was true of previous attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, opposition to parts of the bill was apparent immediately. Although it seems unlikely that there is enough Congressional support to pass the entire bill, it is more likely that portions of the proposed legislation will become law.
Presidential Executive Action
1. Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)
Like TPS, DED is a temporary immigration benefit. For immigrants facing termination of TPS from certain countries, DED can provide an administrative stay of deportation for a specific period of time and a work permit. Rather than being based on a specific immigration law, DED derives from the President’s foreign policy authority and the office’s power to issue an executive order or Presidential memorandum. DED decisions about a foreign country or eligibility requirements for DED are a matter of judgment by the president and any relevant requirements established by the Department of Homeland Security. Since it was first implemented in 1990, DED status has only been granted to migrants from five countries, most recently those from Liberia.
2. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
When informed that Republicans would continue to block a vote on legislation to revise immigration policy, the Obama administration decided that executive action wherever possible was necessary to bring about immigration reform. Consequently, on June 15, 2012, President Obama announced the establishment of the DACA program. DACA has afforded temporary administrative relief from deportation to more than 800,00 qualifying young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors. Specifically, DACA recipients are protected from deportation proceedings for two years.
The eligibility requirements to obtain DACA status include:
arrived in the U.S. unlawfully prior to age 16
entered the U.S. without inspection before June 15, 2012, or individuals whose lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012
are at least 15 years or older at the time of application
are under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012 (born on June 16, 1981 or after), were physically present in the U.S. on that date
continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 to the present
are presently enrolled in school, have graduated high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the armed services or Coast Guard
have not been convicted of a felony or multiple or serious misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety
The application fee for DACA status, including employment authorization and biometric services, is $495, and cannot be waived.
DACA recipients emigrated from countries around the world. However, more than nine-in-ten were born in Latin America, and approximately 80 percent were born in Mexico. Most live in Texas or California. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metropolitan area has the largest number of active enrollees. New York-Newark-Jersey City was the next largest metro area followed by Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington and Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land. The top metro areas of current DACA recipients are similar to those of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population as a whole.
The educational requirements to qualify for DACA status are important in terms of helping recipients to qualify for employment and to deepen their social ties in the country. Importantly, all undocumented children have the clear legal right (Plyler v. Doe) to attend a K-12 public school. Further, no federal law requires proof of citizenship for admission to U.S. colleges. However, paying for a college education is a likely problem for DACA recipients. Because undocumented students are ineligible for federal financial aid, the availability of in-state tuition is a critical factor when it comes to affording education. State regulations vary in the extent to which they support attendance by undocumented students. Three states—Arizona, Georgia and Indiana—specifically prohibit in-state tuition rates for undocumented students which takes away affordable options, and two states—Alabama and South Carolina— prohibit undocumented students from enrolling at any public postsecondary institution. Finally, finding work to help pay tuition may be another difficulty faced by DACA students.
Typically, DACA recipients receive work authorization for two years. These permits must be renewed every two years in order to remain in the country without fearing deportation and to work legally. The most common industries of DACA employment are hospitality, retail trade, construction, education, and health and social services. Employment of DACA recipients is facilitated by the fact that they can obtain driver’s licenses in all 50 states. Significant numbers of DACA recipients are employed in professional occupations. Professional licenses may be obtained in some states such as Florida and Illinois that expressly allow DACA recipients to acquire law licenses.
The legality of DACA has been challenged on several occasions in different jurisdictional venues. For example, in 2018 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined eight other states attorneys general argued that states are illegally obligated to bear extra costs from providing health care, education and law enforcement protection to DACA recipients. The judge in the case ruled against the states, writing that there was ample evidence to show that ending DACA “was contrary to the best interests of the public.” The Texas case was refiled in federal court in December of 2020.
As part of his 2016 election campaign, President Trump pledged to end DACA immediately and make deportation of the estimated 11 million undocumented persons in the U.S. a top priority. His administration consistently sought to deprive immigrant populations of legal status and to decrease legal immigration through a variety of administrative measures. During the first year of his presidency, Trump announced a “wind-down” of the program that involved termination of DACA and refusal to extend TPS and DED designation for certain countries. Because the DACA program was created by an Obama executive policy decision, Trump had the power to simply reverse the policy.
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California case that opposed Trump’s attempt to end the DACA program. According to the Court, the decision to end the program was “arbitrary and capricious.” Nevertheless, the Trump administration responded to the ruling with statements that created uncertainty among DACA recipients about the status of the program.
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order reinstating DACA. The order requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the attorney general, to take all appropriate steps to “preserve and fortify” DACA consistent with applicable law.
It should be clear that the status and complexity of immigration policy at any given time is subject to the changing winds of political power. This is made clear by the work of Professor Lucas Guttentag and a team of 70 students at Yale and Stanford Law Schools. Beginning in 2017, the group developed and maintained the Immigration Policy Tracking Project, a complete record of Trump administration immigration actions, no matter how small. These actions include rules, agency directives, changes in practice, and presidential orders. For example, separating migrant children from their parents. The status of each of these actions is also reported, the legality of many of which are being tried in a court of law. According to the site, “The purpose is to facilitate a deeper understanding of the scope and impact of Trump-era policies and to help develop a roadmap for reform.” In this regard, the response of the Biden administration to some of these actions also is reported. Visitors to the site are strongly advised to open the “Learn More” link on the home page to find out about the background of the project, its methodology, and subject matter.
The website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services maintains up-to-date information on the requirements of DACA immigrants. Importantly, it identifies the burdensome amount of information that DACA applicants must provide to be accepted. A short video describes the program.
Part V – Arguments For and Against Immigration
The failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform reflects the fact that there are strong divergent opinions about the matter. This concluding section identifies organizations that oppose immigration and those that support it. Summaries of their arguments, both pro and con, are available as well.
Anti-immigration Organizations
Generally speaking, most organizations that oppose immigration do so based on claims to be standing up for the “American worker.” They consistently criticize big business for its support of immigration reform. Below are brief descriptions of four well known organizations that oppose the manner in which immigration is currently handled by the government and reject many of the proposals considered in comprehensive reform legislation. Implicit in their actions and rhetoric is an apparent goal of maintaining and expanding a white majority in the U.S. An investigative report in the New York Times revealed the ties among these organizations as well as an important source of funding for their work.
Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI)
IRLI is a non-profit organization that operates as a public interest law firm devoted to protecting the legal rights, privilege, and property of U.S. citizens from damage caused by unlawful immigration. It strives to educate the American people about threats to themselves and their communities resulting from unchecked mass migration IRLI represents U.S. citizens in litigation, specifically to defend their civil rights.
NumbersUSA
The numerical level of U.S. immigration is the sole concern of this group. Despite claims that the organization is not opposed to immigrants, it consistently favors reductions in the number of immigrants admitted to our country. Without a lowering of admissions, the organization is concerned that present and future generations of Americans will not experience a stabilized U.S. population and a “high degree of individual liberty, mobility, environmental quality, worker fairness and fiscal responsibility.”
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
FAIR is a nonprofit, anti-immigration organization. The group publishes position papers, organizes events, and runs campaigns in order to advocate for changes in U.S. immigration policy. “Reducing legal immigration levels from well over one million at present to a very generous 300,000 a year over a sustained period will allow America to manage growth, address environmental concerns, and maintain a high quality of life.” FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a well-known white nationalist and anti-immigration activist, who served as its first president.
Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)
“The Center is animated by a unique pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.” CIS reports and spokespersons constitute a frequently cited think tank for the anti-immigrant movement. It endorses far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses in support of those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham and eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton.
Pro-immigration Organizations
A variety of public and private organizations have promoted immigration reform. Despite the inability of politicians to write and pass legislation that reforms immigration, it is interesting that the organizations cited below represent a wide spectrum of partisan thought.
Investopedia
Investopedia is an American financial website that provides financial and investment advice. Its online financial platform is intended to widen access to financial education. This article addresses three important claims about the negative effects of immigration – lowering wages of current workers, displacing American citizens from their jobs, and being a drain on the resources of government agencies such as the U.S. Treasury. After reviewing the pertinent evidence regarding these matters, the article concludes that immigrants lower costs for their employers and represent a sizable consumer group that may actually create more job opportunities than they take. Further, wage suppression appears to be minimal over time. Finally, “while first-generation immigrants may cost the government more than native-born workers because of their lower incomes, many pay far more into Social Security than they receive.”
George W. Bush Institute
The Institute is the nonpartisan public policy arm of the Bush Center, home to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. It is focused on taking action to address problems related to human freedom, global health, economic growth, and education reform. This site briefly debunks eight common myths that ridicule immigrants, including their impact on the employment of American citizens, their reliance upon economic support from government agencies, and their poor education.
Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is a libertarian public policy research organization. It is dedicated to limiting excessive government power and promoting individual liberty, free markets, and peace. This paper addresses 14 separate concerns raised by opponents of immigration, in each case providing evidence that either refutes the claims or minimizes their potential harm to society. A link is provided to an interesting article, “Deregulating Legal Immigration: A Blueprint for Agency Action.” These 30 deregulatory actions would lessen the costs of what the Institute considers America’s outdated immigration laws.
Part VI – Concluding Statement
Immigrants and their children in every state and community across the country have helped to build a more dynamic economy and ensure a shared prosperity for all now and in future years.
Because most immigrants come to the U.S. during their prime working and reproductive years, they are likely to serve as replacements for more and more Baby Boomer retirees, filling the gaps in the workforce that are left behind. However, until agreement is reached about the status of Hispanic migrants, these individuals will continue to deal with uncertainty about the conditions that will permit them to enter the U.S. and acquire the legal status that permits them to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities characteristic of American society.
Finally, you are encouraged to visit the other chapters in the Library’s Hispanic Heritage portfolio. These chapters will offer many examples of how Hispanic people have contributed to many forms of American culture, science, and commerce.
