On the Ballot: An Immigration System Most Americans Never Wanted

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was a landmark decision meant to remove racist quotas and allow immigration from across the globe, but it inadvertently led to significant changes in US demographics and unforeseen outcomes.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act aimed to remove racist quotas and open up immigration to the global population, not increase immigration levels overall.

The Kennedy administration sought to repair the "who" of the immigration system, moving away from a system that prioritized immigrants based on geographical origin. David Leonhardt notes that this approach emerged from the restrictive 1924 immigration laws that heavily favored northern and western Europeans while limiting immigration from Asia and placing caps on eastern and southern Europeans. The idea was to welcome contributions to the economy from people of all origins without significantly increasing immigration to the United States.

The law's architects, including President Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy, explicitly promised it would not significantly increase immigration to the United States.

The Kennedy brothers played a pivotal role in reshaping America’s view on immigration, with John F. Kennedy introducing the nation as a "Nation of Immigrants" in his book. In attempting to fix a broken and prejudiced immigration system, Kennedy vigorously campaigned for a bill that would welcome immigrants from all over the world. Both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy assured the American public that this bill would not lead to a significant rise in immigration numbers—a promise that was highlighted by Leonhardt as the central selling point of the law.

Senator Ted Kennedy, during the hearing for the bill, clearly stated that any belief that immigration would increase was irrational and without foundation, and President Johnson, when signing the law, promised it was not a "revolutionary bill" and would not add significantly to the nation’s wealth or power.

However, the law contained a "loophole" that allowed for unlimited family-based immigration, which led to a steady and substantial rise in legal immigration over the following decades.

The law, as it was passed, allowed for many family members to immigrate without being counted toward the quota of 265,000 immigrants a year, creating a far-reaching loophole. Relatives were exempt because they were not perceived as a threat to the labor market; it was assumed they would not co ...

The decades following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 saw a significant surge in both legal and illegal immigration to the United States, far exceeding expected quotas and leading to widespread perceptions of an immigration system spiraling out of control.

Legal immigration surged in the decades following the 1965 law, far exceeding the stated quotas due to the family-based immigration loophole.

The 1965 law's provisions unintentionally allowed for potentially unlimited family-based immigration, which did not count against the stated quota. As a result of this loophole, legal immigration numbers increased significantly. Originally capped at 290,000, legal immigration numbers were $300,000 in 1965, rose to $373,000 by 1970, then to $524,000 by 1980, and by 1990 they surpassed one million annually, which was over four times the original quota limit. The family unification component of the legislation played a critical role in this spike of immigration.

Illegal immigration also rose sharply in the 1980s and 1990s, as economic conditions and transportation improved for potential migrants from Latin America.

Concurrently, illegal immigration became a much larger issue in the 1980s and 1990s. As economic conditions and transportation opportunities improved for potential migrants from Latin America, the number of unauthorized immigrants rose sharply. This increase in both legal and illegal immigration led many Americans to sense that the system was not reflecting public preferences and seemingly lacked control.

The combination of rising legal and illegal immigration led to a sense among many Americans that the immigration system was "out of control" and not reflecting their preferences.

This combination of rising legal and illegal immigration contributed to concerns that the immigration system was chaotic and unfair. Concerns were particularl ...

The 1990s saw attempts to reform the U.S. immigration system, spearheaded by Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's commission, amidst rising legal and illegal immigration that was causing public discontent.

In the 1990s, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan led a bipartisan commission to recommend reforms to the immigration system.

Despite her initial reluctance due to a lack of background in immigration, Jordan eventually accepted the role of chairing the commission, which sought to address the unintended consequences of the 1965 law. The commission she led analyzed data, listened to testimony, and traveled the country, which led her to discern a distinction between being pro-immigrant and pro-immigration. Barbara Jordan emphasized that excessive immigration could compete with earlier immigrants in the job market and lead to a political backlash. In her speeches, she outlined a vision for controlled legal immigration, advocating for a "properly regulated system" that unites families and protects refugees while emphasizing the importance of regulation.

Jordan argued the U.S. should be "pro-immigrant" but not necessarily "pro-immigration," and proposed reducing legal immigration by about one-third.

She made a case for reform by arguing that the U.S. should have a policy that serves the national interest and not just the privileged few. Her recommendations were comprehensive, including controls on illegal immigration through a system using Social Security numbers and driver's licenses, limiting the admission of extended family members and unskilled workers, and overall, suggesting a one-third reduction in legal immigration.

President Clinton initially supported the commission's recommendations, endorsing steps such as speeding up the deportation of criminals and identifying illegal workers more effectively. Jordan's approach was to focus on admitting immigrants in a way that supported U.S. interests, such as members of an immigrant's nuclear family, highly skilled workers, and political refugees, but called for a reduction in admitting extended family members.

However, Jordan's recommendations were largely ignored, as both liberal and conservative political elites resisted efforts to significantly scale back immigration, legal or illegal.

Opposition to Jordan's recommendations quickly formed, stemming from groups across the political spectrum. While Republicans appreciated the labor and entrepreneurial opportunities immigration presented, some Democrats and civil rights groups were against reducing immigration levels, leading to the recommendations largely not being implemented. A voluntary system for checking worker legality was eventually introduced, but its ...