• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 Development of U.S. immigration...
 Current issues and future...
 Appendix














Title: U.S. immigration policy
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087307/00001
 Material Information
Title: U.S. immigration policy the western hemisphere
Physical Description: 46 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Vialet, Joyce C
Library of Congress -- Congressional Research Service
Publisher: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
Place of Publication: Washington DC
Publication Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Emigration and immigration law -- United States   ( lcsh )
Emigration and immigration -- Government policy -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joyce Vialet, Specialist in Social Legislation.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "April 9, 1980."
General Note: "Report number 80-69 EPW."
General Note: "JV 6201 U.S.A."
General Note: "Education and Public Welfare Division."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087307
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 35710180

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Abstract
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
    Development of U.S. immigration laws
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Current issues and future prospects
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Appendix
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
Full Text




Report No. 80-69 EPW


U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY:


THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


by
Joyce Vialet
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division


April 9, 1980


CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
LIBHAR of
CONGRF-,-


JV 6201 U.S. A




























The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for
the Congress, conducting research, analyzing legislation, and
providing information at the request of committees, Mem-
bers, and their staffs.

The Service makes such research available, without parti-
san bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compila-
tions, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, CRS
assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and
issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals
and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and
subject analysts are also available for personal consultations
in their respective fields of expertise.



















ABSTRACT


Two dominant trends are apparent in the development of U.S. immigration

law and policy regarding other countries in the Western Hemisphere. First,

the focus of immigration law since the 1920s has been on the Eastern rather

than the Western Hemisphere. Second, our immigration law has been shaped

primarily by domestic rather than by foreign policy considerations. However,

we appear to have reached the end of an era in development of our immigration

law. A recasting of U.S. immigration law and policy is not an unlikely

possibility during the 1980s, with at least an equal concern for the two hemi-

spheres, as well as an equal weighting of foreign and domestic policy

considerations.

This paper reviews the approximately 100-year history of U.S. immigration

law with special reference to the Western Hemisphere. This is followed by a

brief discussion of current issues regarding legal and illegal migration to

the United States from other countries in the Western Hemisphere, and possible

directions for future change in U.S. law and policy regarding that migration.











CRS-v


CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........,..,. ....,......................... ................... iii

I. Development of U.S. Immigration Laws,.....,...,...,................., 1

19th Century Immigration and Legislation,............................... 1

Early 20th Century Immigration and Legislation.,,....,................ 5

The World War I Temporary Mexican Worker Program........................ 7

The 1920s: Numerical Restrictions.!,................ ................ 9

The 1940s: World War II Temporary Alien Workers........................ 13

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952........................ .. 15

The Mexican Bracero Program, 1951-1964,.. ...... ...... ....... ......... 19

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments..................... 23

Cuban Refugees ................. ............................. 27

The Western Hemisphere Ceiling and the 1976 and 1978 Amendments........ 28

The Development of U.S. Immigration Law; Conclusions.................. 31

II. Current Issues and Future Prospects......,......,............. ........ 35

APPENDIX ........,............*,,,**,,,, ............. ,..................... 42



















U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY: THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


I. DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. IMMIGRATION LAWS

19th Century Immigration and Legislation

Immigration to this country has been regulated by Federal law for a little

over a century, beginning in 1875. Prior to that time, the United States

encouraged free immigration. The United States was seen by itself and others

as a land of political and economic asylum, a policy compatible with both

the opportunities and the needs of a new and large country.

While official statistics did not exist until 1820, the number of immi-

grants entering between 1790 and 1820 is estimated at 250,000. Official

statistics, beginning in 1820, are shown in table 1. Immigration to the

United States during the mid-19th century came primarily from northern and

western Europe, led by the Irish and Germans fleeing famine and political

unrest. More than 900,000 entered from Ireland and Germany during the decade

1851-1860, out of a total of 2,452,577 entries from Europe. In contrast,

immigration from the Americas during that decade remained low, at 74,720.

Immigration during the 19th century peaked during the decade of the 1880s

at 5,246,613 with almost 1.5 million from Germany. Western Hemisphere immigra-

tion during this decade was close to 427,000, coming primarily from Canada and

Newfoundland. 1/



1/ U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
1978 Annual Report [forthcoming], Table 13. This table, which appears as an
appendix to this paper, is the source of historical data on immigrants
unless otherwise noted. The table categorizes immigrants by country of last
permanent residence, rather than by country of birth.








CRS-2




TABLE 1.
IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES
1820-1978

/From 1820 to 1867, figures represent alien passengers arrived; from 1868 through 1891
and 1895 through 1897, immigrant aliens arrived; from 1892 through 1894 and 1898
to the present time, immigrant aliens admitted/


Number
Year of persons


1820-1978 1/

1820 ...

1821-1830 .
1821 ...
1822 ...
1823 ...
1824 ...
1825 ...
1826 ...
1827 ...
1828 ...
1829 ...
1830 ...

1831-1840 .
1831 ...
1832 ...
1833 ...
1834 ...
1835 ...
1836 ...
1837 ...
1838 ...
1839 ...
1840 ...

1841-1850 .
1841 ...
1842 ...
1843 ...
1844 ...
1845 ...
1846 ...
1847 ...
1848 ...
1849 ...
1850 ...

1851-1860 .
1851 ...
1852 ...
1853 ...
1854 ...
1855 ...
1856 ...
1857 ...
1858 ...
1859 ...
1860 ...


48,664,965

8.385

143,439
9,127
6,911
6,354
7,912
10,199
10,837
18,875
27 382
22,520
23,322

599.125
22,633
60,482
58,640
65,365
45,374
76,242
79,340
38,914
68,069
84,066

1.713.251
80,289
104,565
52,496
78,615
114,371
154,416
234,968
226,527
297,024
369,980

2.598,214
379,466
371,603
368,645
427,833
200,877
200,436
251,306
123,126
121,282
153,640


Number
of persons


1861-1870 .
1861 ...
1862 ...
1863 ...
1864 ...
1865 ...
1866 ...
1867 ...
1868 ...
1869 ...
1870 ...

1871-1880 .
1871 ...
1872 ...
1873 ...
1874 ...
1875 ...
1876 ...
1877 ...
1878 ...
1879 ...
1880 ...

1881-1890
1881 ...
1882 ...
1883 ...
1884 ...
1885 ...
1886 ...
1887 ...
1888 ...
1889 ...
1890 ...

1891-1900 .
1891 ...
1892 ...
1893 ...
1894 ...
1895 ...
1896 ...
1897 ...
1898 ...
1899 ...
1900 ...


2 314.824
91,918
91,985
176,282
193,418
248,120
318,568
315,722
138,840
352,768
387,203

2.812.191
321,350
404,806
459,803
313,339
227,498
169,986
141,857
138,469
177,826
457,257

5.246.613
669,431
788,992
603,322
518,592
395,346
334,203
.490,109
546,889
444,427
455,302

3 687 564
560,319
579,663
439,730
285,631
258,536
343,267
230,832
229,299
311,715
448,572


S Number
of persons


1--


1901-1910 .
1901 ...
1902 ...
1903 ...
1904 ...
1905 ...
1906 ...
1907 ...
1908 ...
1909 .,.
1910 ...

1911-1920 .
1911 ...
1912 ...
1913 ...
1914 ...
1915 ...
1916 ...
1917 ...
1918 ...
1919 ...
1920 ...

1921-1930 .
1921 ...
1922 ...
1923 ...
1924 ...
1925 ...
1926 ...
1927 ...
1928 ...
1929 ...
1930 ...

1931-1940 .
1931 ...
1932 ...
1933 ...
1934 ...
1935 ...
1936 ...
1937 ...
1938 ...
1939 ...
1940 ...


8.795.386
487,918
648,743
857,046
812,870
1,026,499
1,100,735
1,285,349
782,870
751,786
1,041,570

5 735 811
878,587
838,172
1,197,892
1,218,480
326,700
298,826
295,403
110,618
141,132
430,001

4.107,209
805,228
309,556
522,919
706,896
294,314
304,488
335,175
307,255
279,678
241,700

528,431
97,139
35,576
23,068
29,470
34,956
36,329
50,244
67,895
82,998
70,756


Number
of persons


1941-1950 .
1941 ...
1942 ...
1943 ...
1944 ...
1945 ...
1946 ...
1947 ...
1948 ...
1949 ...
1950 ...

1951-1960 .
1951 ...
1952 ...
1953 ...
1954 ...
1955 ...
1956 ...
1957 ...
1958 ...
1959 ...
1960 ...

1961-1970 .
1961 ...
1962 ...
1963 ...
1964 ...
1965 ...
1966 ...
1967 ...
1968 ..
1969 ...
1970 ...


1971 ...
1972 ...
1973 ...
1974 ...
1975 ...
1976 ...
1976, TQ
1977 ...
1978 ...


1.035,039
51,776
28,781
23,725
28,551
38,119
108,721
147,292
170,570
188,317
249,187

2.515,479
205,717
265,520
170,434
208,177
237,790
321,625
326,867
253,265
260,686
265,398

3.321.677
271,344
283,763
306,260
292,248
296,697
323,040
361,972
454,448
358,579
373,326


370,471
384,685
400,063
394,861
386.194
398,613
103,676
462,315
601,442


From 1869 to 1976, the data is for fiscal years ended June 30. Prior to fiscal year 1869, the periods
covered are as follows: from 1820-1831 and 1843-1849, the years ended on September 30-- 1843 covers 9
months; from 1832-1842 and 1850-1867, the years ended on December 31-- 1832 and 1850 covers 15 months.
For 1868, the periods ended on June 30 and covers 6 months. The transition quarter (TQ) for 1976
covers the 3-month period, July-September 1976. Beginning October 1, 1976,the fiscal years ended on
September 30.
United States Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service













CRS-3


The view of the United States as a land of asylum dominated U.S.

immigration policy during the 19th century. However, the three elements which

formed the basis for the policy of comparative restriction which gradually

supplanted the policy of asylum were all present in legislation enacted during

the 19th century. These were individual qualifications, national origin, and

labor.

The first immigration legislation focused on individual immigrants,

setting forth grounds for exclusion of various categories of undesirable

aliens. A Federal statute was enacted in 1875 2/ barring the entry of

convicts and prostitutes. It was followed in 1882 3/ by what is commonly

referred to as the first general immigration statute, barring persons likely

to become public charges, as well as idiots, lunatics, and convicts. In a

direct evolution from this early legislation, 33 categories of grounds for

exclusion are enumerated in the current law. 4/

The first legislation basing eligibility-or ineligibility-for entry on

national origin was also enacted in 1882. This was the Chinese Exclusion

Act, 5/ which remained in effect until its repeal in 1943.

The 1880s also saw the enactment of the contract labor laws, prohibiting

the importation under contract of foreign labor. During the 19th century the

successive waves of immigrants supplied the country with labor at a time when

there were unlimited job opportunities, and an inexhaustible need for unskilled



2/ Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 477.

3/ Act of Aug. 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 214.

4/ Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, sec. 212(a)
(1)-(33); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (1)-(33).

5/ Act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 58; repealed by Act of Dec. 17, 1943,
57 Stat. 600.








CRS-4


labor. However, beginning in the 1860s, charges were made that alien laborers

were being brought here by employers in excessive numbers and under false

pretenses for the express purposes of keeping wages down. The racially

discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was motivated in part by a desire

to protect U.S. labor. The contract labor laws of 1885 6/ and 1887 7/ were

aimed specifically and solely at protecting domestic labor. An 1888 amend-

ment 8/ to the contract labor laws permitted the deportation within 1 year of

aliens who entered in violation of the law-in effect, the first law against

illegal immigration.

The protection of American labor against adverse competition from alien

workers has been a dominant theme throughout the development of restrictions

on U.S. immigration. A related provision remains in the law today, in the

form of the labor certification provision. 9/ At the same time, as will be

seen particularly with reference to the regulation of Western Hemisphere immi-

gration, a sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory purpose of the

immigration law has been to supply U.S. employers with alien laborers. This

has been done either directly or indirectly, by not effectively prohibiting

their entry; and both as part of the permanent law and on a temporary basis.

The two temporary Mexican worker programs are discussed as part of this chron-

ological review.



6/ Act of February 26, 1885, 23 Stat. 332.

7/ Act of February 23, 1887, 24 Stat. 414.

8/ Act of October 19, 1888, 25 Stat. 566.

9/ 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(14).









CRS-5


Early 20th Century Immigration and Legislation

The early 20th century brought with it a marked increase in immigration,

as well as a shift in the major areas of origin. More than 1 million immi-

grants entered in 1905, 1906, 1907, 1910, 1913, and 1914. The first year of

World War I, 1914, marked an all-time high in immigration of 1,218,480.

Immigration fell sharply the following year to 326,700 and by 1918 reached

110,618, the lowest figure recorded since the early 1860s.

During the first decade 6f the new century, 8,795,386 immigrants entered.

While more than 8 million of them came from Europe, they now came predominantly

from eastern and southern Europe, rather than from northern and western Europe.

More than 2 million entered during this decade from both Italy and Austria-

Hungary, and more than 1.5 million came from Russia. During the period 1881-

1890, 80 percent of European immigrants came from northern and western Europe.

In contrast, during 1911-1920, 77 percent came from southern and eastern

Europe. During this second decade, Western Hemisphere immigration also

reached a high of 1,143,671, led by Canada. Based on subsequent legislative

action, this increase was not of particular concern.

Legislation enacted during World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 10/

codified existing restrictions on immigration and added new ones. Enacted over

President Wilson's veto, the 1917 Act established the Asiatic Barred Zone,

which further restricted the entry of Orientals. It also prohibited the entry

of aliens over 16 who were unable to read, a measure specifically intended to

curtail immigration from southeastern Europe. Literacy provisions had been

passed previously in 1896, 1913, and 1915, and vetoed successively by Presi-

dents Cleveland, Taft, and Wilson.



10/ Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874.









CRS-6


In his 1915 veto message, President Wilson charged that the literacy test

marked a sharp departure from the traditional American belief in "the right of

political asylum" which had heretofore characterized American immigration

policy. Quoting from his message:

Hitherto we have generously kept our doors open to all who were
not unfitted by reason of disease or incapacity for self-
support or such personal records and antecedents as were likely
to make them a menace to our peace and order or to the whole-
some and essential relationships of life. In this bill it is
proposed to turn away from tests of character and of quality and
impose tests which exclude and restrict; for the new tests here
embodied are not tests of quality or of character or of
personal fitness, but tests of opportunity. Those who come
seeking opportunity are not to be admitted unless they have
already had one of the chief of the opportunities they seek, the
opportunity of education. The object of such provisions is
restriction, not selection. 11/

President Wilson went on to note, "If the people of this country have made up

their minds to limit the number of immigrants by arbitrary tests and so

reverse the policy of all the generations of Americans that have gone before

them, it is their right to do so." 12/ However, he did not believe this to be

the case.

Two years later, a wartime Congress overrode a subsequent veto by Presi-

dent Wilson, and the literacy requirement became law. Under the combined

pressure of wartime nationalism and post-war isolationism, the economics of

increasing urbanization, and a concern about the large numbers of immigrants

entering from southeastern Europe, the American public, as reflected by the

Congress, had indeed opted to reverse the policy of providing political and



11/ Wilson, Woodrow. Not tests of quality but of opportunity.
Reprinted in Immigration and the American Tradition, ed. Moses Rischin.
Indianapolis, Bobbs Merrill Co., Inc., 1976, pp. 285-286.


12/ Ibid., p. 286.










CRS-7


asylum for one of comparative restriction. Numerical limitations followed in

1921 and, in varying forms, have remained in effect ever since.


The World War I Temporary Mexican Worker Program

In addition to entry as immigrants for permanent residence, a significant

number of aliens--predominantly from the Western Hemisphere--have entered for

the purpose of performing temporary labor. Large-scale temporary alien worker

programs have characteristically been associated with wartime labor shortages.

The first major program was initiated in 1917 and lasted until approximately

1921. It primarily involved Mexicans, although a small number of Bahamians

and Canadians also participated. An estimated 80,000 workers were employed

during the life of the program, primarily--although not exclusively--in

agriculture.

A number of factors contributed to the urgent requests from U.S. employers

for supplemental labor which led to the World War I program. The departure of

domestic agricultural workers for military service and higher paying war

production industries coincided with the cutback of relatively free immigration

from Mexico by the Act of 1917, discussed above. The literacy provision,

combined with the doubling of the head tax to $8, made it impossible for many

Mexicans to enter, particularly since the provision barring the entry of aliens

for prearranged contract labor was also continued. In May 1917 the Bureau of

Immigration issued an order 13/ waiving these provisions of the 1917 Act for

aliens entering temporarily for agricultural employment and subsequently for

war-related railway work and coal mining.



13/ U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary. Instruction to
Commissioners of Immigration concerning suspension of certain provisions.
Washington, May 23, 1917. Reprinted in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
Immigration. Emergency Immigration Legislation, part 1. Hearings, 66th
Congress, 3d sess., 1921, pp. 698-699.









CRS-8


The detailed procedures outlined for the program were not adequately

enforced, with the result that there was a high degree of "skipping," primari-

ly to higher paying jobs in industry. According to the Bureau of Immigration,

of the 72,862 aliens who had been admitted during 1917-1921, "21,400 deserted

their employment and disappeared." 14/ In addition to inadequate law enforce-

ment personnel, the program was hampered by the lack of official Mexican

participation in the contracting, in marked contrast to its active participa-

tion in the administration of the World War II bracero program.

Mexican immigration, both legal and illegal, reached an unprecedented

level following the World War I program. According to INS statistics,

permanent legal immigration from Mexico increased from 49,642 during 1901-1910

to 459,287 during 1921-1930. The Mexican immigration was estimated by the

official American census at 890,746 in 1926, compared to 486,418 in 1920 and

221,915 in 1910.

In a 1930 analysis, Manuel Gamio commented on the "high number of Mexicans

who enter the United States illegally every year." 15/ Whether illegal Mexican

migration to the United States would have increased without the World War I

program is, of course, debatable. It can be argued that economic conditions

in the two countries during the 1920s were sufficient to explain it. On the

other hand, it seems possible that rather than ending in 1921, the temporary

worker program simply went underground and also spread from agriculture to



14/ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration. Annual Report of
the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor, FY21, p. 7.

15/ Gamio, Manuel. Mexican Immigration to the United States. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1930, p. 9. (Reprinted New York, Arno Press,
1969.)










CRS-9


industry, as appears to have happened following the termination of the World

War II bracero program in the mid-1960s.

The main reasons Gamio cited for illegal immigration in the 1920s were

the difficulties, including red-tape and cost, presented by the immigration

law, combined with the efforts of smugglers and job contractors who facilitated

illegal entry and the location of jobs, and the binational push-pull factors

so frequently cited in analyses of illegal immigration in the 1970s. He

concluded that the trend was irreversible: "The propinquity of the two

countries and the enormous extent of the boundary make it absolutely impossi-

ble to prevent immigration, unless a large army of Mexican and American

police were to patrol the line." 16/ Fifty years of subsequent experience

have not proved him wrong.


The 1920s: Numerical Restrictions

Until the 1920s restrictions on immigration had essentially remained

qualitative rather than quantitative. That is, there were no restrictions on

the number of aliens who could enter, provided that they met the criteria set

forth in the law. During the 1920s numerical restrictions were placed on

immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere. Western Hemisphere immigration

remained numerically unrestricted until 1968.

The temporary Quota Act of 1921 17/ was followed by the permanent Immigra-

tion Act of 1924 18/ which remained in force until 1952. Under the national

origins quota formula which went into effect on July 1, 1929, the annual quota



16/ Ibid., p. 12.

17/ Act of May 19, 1921, 42 Stat. 5.

18/ Act of May 26, 1924, 43 Stat. 153.










CRS-10


of any nationality was "a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the

number of white inhabitants of the United States in 1920 with a minimum quota

of 100 for each nationality." 19/ Natives of countries in the "barred zone,"

encompassing most oriental countries, were generally inadmissible as immigrants

with certain exceptions.

The movement toward numerical limitations initially reflected a genuine

fear of being engulfed by the refugees of war-ravaged Europe, together with

the growing nationalism of the United States as an emerging world power and the

isolationism which has tended to characterize the country during post-war

periods throughout this century. A commentary from the 1950 Senate report

which preceded the restrictive 1952 Act is revealing in this respect:

Reports of congressional committees during the years 1918
to 1924 show a succession of conditions very similar to the
conditions facing the Congress during the present postwar period.

There were many thousands of victims of the ravages of war in
Europe. There were poverty, distress, hunger, and disease every-
where, as well as disturbances and confusions among the populations
of the new governments created within the territory of old nations.
It was estimated that between 2,000,000 and 8,000,000 persons in
Germany alone wanted to come to the United States. A congressional
committee confirmed a published statement of a commissioner of the
Hebrew Sheltering and Aid Society of America that-

"If there were in existence a ship that could hold
3,000,000 human beings, the 3,000,000 Jews of Poland would
board it to escape America." 20/

As the 1920s progressed, the arguments in favor of numerical restric-

tions were buttressed and shaped by popular biological theories of the period

alleging the superiority of certain races. Two statements by Dr. Harry N.

Laughlin, a eugenics consultant to the House Judiciary Committee on Immigration



19/ H. Rept. 1365, 82nd Cong., 2d,sess., February 14, 1952, p. 37.

20/ S. Rept. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., April 20, 1950, p. 55.










CRS-11


and Naturalization in the early 1920s indicate the important role these

theories played in the direction taken by immigration policy immediately after

World War I:

We in this country have been so imbued with the idea of
democracy, or the equality of all men, that we have left out
of consideration the matter of blood or natural born hereditary
mental and moral differences. No man who breeds pedigreed plants
and animals can afford to neglect this thing. .

The National Origins provisions of the immigration control
law of 1924 marked the actual turning point from immigration
control based on the asylum idea .definitely in favor of
the biological basis. 21/

The national origins quota system remained controversial from the time of

its inception until its repeal in 1965. Quoting from the 1950 Senate report:

The 1924 act had been hailed as the most far-reaching
change that occurred in America during the course of that
quarter century, in that it arrested the tendency toward a
change in the fundamental composition of the American stock.
It has been denounced as radically biased, statistically
incorrect, and a clumsy instrument of selection which bars
individuals by discrimination against nations instead of
considering personal qualifications of immigrants. 22/

The numerical restrictions adopted in the 1920s were not extended to

the Western Hemisphere, according to one source, for three main reasons:

(1) Some of these countries had few or no nationals
in the United States upon whom a national origin quota
could be based and under the quota system they would have
been totally excluded in the future. (2) The borders
between this country and Canada and Mexico were considered
too extensive to patrol against illegal entries effectively.
(3) The desirability of continued favored treatment to sister
nations of the Western Hemisphere. 23/



21/ Quoted by Abba Schwartz. The Open Society. New York, Simon and
Schuster, 1968, pp. 105-106.

22/ S. Rept. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 64.

23/ Bennett, Marion T. American Immigration Policies. Washington,
Public Affairs Press, 1963, p. 61.










CRS-12


This omission was explained as follows in the 1950 Senate report, "The blanket

nonquota status in the case of Western Hemisphere aliens rests chiefly upon

considerations arising from geographical proximity of the Western Hemisphere

countries and considerations of friendly relations among them." 24/

In 1929, in action apparently inspired more by a desire to head off

efforts to place a statutory ceiling on Mexican immigration than by an aware-

ness of the impending economic depression, administrative control of the

Mexican border was significantly tightened. The State Department combined an

appeal to Pan-Americanism with more stringent enforcement of the provisions of

existing immigration in a successful attempt to decrease immigration levels in

the opening years of the depression. According to a State Department press

release in June 1930,

proper enforcement of existing immigration laws can and
will be maintained in the future, in Mexico as in other
countries, so as to prevent effectively the recurrence of
conditions existing a few years ago, when the recorded
admission of Mexican laborers were very high. 25/

The 1930s were characterized by a sharp drop in immigration. Total

admissions from the Western Hemisphere fell from 1,516,716 in the 1920s to

160,037 in the 1930s. Immigration from Canada fell from 925,000 to a little

over 100,000, and Mexican immigration fell from 460,000 to 22,000. In fact,

Mexican out-migration during the 1930s far exceeded immigration, and many of

those who left did'so under duress and were legally entitled to stay. 26/



24/ S. Rept. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 473.

25/ Quoted by Robert Divine. American Immigration Policy, 1924-1952.
New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957, p. 63.

26/ Grebler, Leo. Mexican Immigration to the United States: the Record
and its Implications. Mexican-American Study Project, Advance Report 2,
December 1965, p. 25, p. 28.









CRS-13


The mass "repatriation" of Mexicans during the depression years contributed to

the detailed guarantees demanded by that country in the World War II bracero

program.


The 1940s: World War II Temporary Alien Workers

Total immigrant admissions doubled during the 1940s compared to the 1930s

going from 528,431 to 1,035,039. This was still the lowest 10-year figure

since the 1830s, exclusive of the preceding decade. Of this number, 354,804

entered from the Western Hemisphere, led by Canada (171,718), Mexico (60,589),

and the West Indies (49,725).

The total number of permanent entries from the Western Hemisphere during

the 1940s and 1950s was far exceeded.by the number of admissions for temporary

employment from the Western Hemisphere countries, led overwhelmingly by Mexico.

The Mexican bracero program lasted from 1942 until 1964, and employed between

4 and 5 million temporary agricultural workers. Significant, although much

smaller numbers also entered from the Bahamas, Jamaica, Barbados, British

Honduras, Canada and Newfoundland.

In response to the wartime manpower shortage of World War II and

continuing until the end of 1947, the U.S. Government approved the entry of

more than 300,000 foreign agricultural workers, of whom approximately 220,000

came from Mexico. During this period, the workers were recruited, transported,

and placed with U.S. employers at Government expense by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. The legislative authority was a series of acts known as the

farm labor supply appropriations acts, the last of which expired at the end

of 1947. 27/ The importation also proceeded during the wartime period under



27/ This was the Act of May 26, 1947, 61 Stat. 109. The first of the
series was P.L. 45, Act of April 29, 1943, 57 Stat. 70.










CRS-14


a series of international agreements, formal in the case of Mexico and informal

in the case of the other participating countries.

A major problem besetting the temporary alien worker program during the

1940s was the supplementary flow of illegal migrants, again primarily from

Mexico, which threatened to undermine the legal program. This problem was not

brought under control until the mid-1950s. A particularly interesting occur-

rence during this segment of the 22-year history of the Mexican bracero

program was the recommendation by Mexico that the U.S. enact sanctions against

employers who hired illegal migrants. In a communication with the American

Embassy on October 8, 1946, Mexican Foreign Minister Tello wrote, "Without

presuming to suggest any action to the Government of the United States, yet if

the problem were attacked at its economic source, imposing sanctions on Ameri-

can employers who employ illegal entrants, the result would promptly come

about that Mexican workers would not in the future embark upon a venture made

both difficult and unprofitable." 28/

With expiration of the special wartime legislation at the end of 1947 the

Mexican program continued to be regulated by international agreement at the

specific request of the Mexican Government, in contrast to the British West

Indies (BWI) and other temporary worker programs. The problem of illegal

migration continued during the difficult interim period between the lapse of

the wartime legislation and the enactment of new legislation in 1951 and 1952.

In addition, Mexico was unhappy with the mechanics of the program as it was

then operating, and there were indications of its adverse impact on U.S.



28/ Quoted by Otey Scruggs. The United States, Mexico, and the Wetbacks,
1942-1947. Pacific Historical Review, v. 30, May 1961, p. 151.










CRS-15


workers, as noted in particular by President Truman's Commission on Migratory

Labor in its highly critical report published in March 1951. 29/


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Prior to the recodification of U.S. immigration laws in 1952 the two

major laws in effect were the Immigration Act of 1917, setting forth qualitative

grounds for exclusion, and the Immigration Act of 1924, setting forth numerical

limitations, primarily in the form of the national origins quota system. Legis-

lation enacted during the interim period included a series of humanitarian

measures designed to admit refugees in the aftermath of World War II. The

most significant was the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which was substantively

amended in 1950. 30/

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 31/ codified and carried

forward, with modifications, the essential elements of both the 1917 and the

1924 Acts, as well as those provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 32/

relating to the exclusion of Communists. With major amendments, it remains in

effect today.

The 1952 legislation reflected the isolationism and anti-communism of the

period, following World War II and at the onset of the Korean War. The law

was, as Robert Divine has noted, "in essence an act of conservatism rather

than of intolerance." 33/ The difference between the climate of opinion in



29/ U.S. President's Commission on Migratory Labor, Migratory Labor in
American Agriculture. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1951.

30/ Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 1009; Act of June 16, 1950, 64 Stat. 219.

31/ Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.

32/ Act of Sept. 23, 1950, 64 Stat. 987.

33/ Divine (1957), p. 190.










CRS-16


the 1920s and the early 1950s is apparent in the following statement in the

1950 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Without giving credence to any

theory of Nordic superiority, the subcommittee believes that the adoption of

the national origins quota formula was a rational and logical method of numeri-

cally restricting immigration in such a manner as to best preserve the

sociological and cultural balance of the United States." 34/ In contrast to

the 1920s, the case for the national origins quota system in the 1950s was not

generally argued on the grounds of racial superiority, but on sociological

theories of the time relating to cultural assimilation. The provisions

effectively prohibiting entry from most Asian countries were also somewhat

relaxed by the 1952 Act.

However, the legislation was characterized by supporters and opponents

alike as a restrictionist measure, and was a severe disappointment to those who

had hoped for a liberalization of the immigration law. In particular, the

continuation of the national origins quota system was viewed by critics of

the legislation as being inappropriate to the needs of U.S. foreign policy.

Foremost among these critics was President Truman, who vetoed the bill and

established a Presidential commission to come up with a blueprint for a better

U.S. immigration policy. His veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in

the House, and 57 to 26 in the Senate.

Quoting from President Truman's veto message:

Today, we are "protecting" ourselves as we were in 1924,
against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This
is fantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen
under the Communist yoke--they are silenced, fenced off by
barbed wire and minefields--no one passes their borders but at



34/ S. Rept. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 455.









CRS-17


the risk of his life. We do not need to be protected against
immigrants from these countries--on the contrary we want to
stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed
to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave
enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them
against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be
free again. These are only a few examples of the absurd-
ity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the
isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.

In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered
and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this
field of immigration. 35/

This view was echoed by the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturali-

zation, which concluded "that our present immigration law should be completely

rewritten."

Our present immigration policy dates from the period
following the first world war. That was only some 30 years
ago, but it was a different era of world and of American
history. Then the United States was seeking to avoid the
international responsibilities which its power and stature
placed upon it. Our present immigration laws are rooted
in the period of America's blindest isolationism. 36/

With specific regard to foreign policy, the President's Commission concluded:

American immigration policies have frustrated and hand-
icapped the aims and programs of American foreign policy
throughout the period since 1924. The major disruptive
influence in our immigration law is the racial and national
discrimination caused by the national origins system. 37/

In addition to continuing the national origins quota system for the

Eastern Hemisphere, the 1952 Act also continued the nonquota status of natives

of Western Hemisphere countries. The 1950 Senate report which formed the

preliminary basis for the 1952 legislation had recommended that the nonquota



35/ House Doc. 520, 82nd Cong., 2d sess., June 25, 1952, p. 5.

36/ U.S. President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, Whom
We Shall Welcome. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1953, p. 46.


37/ Ibid., p. 52.










CRS-18


status be retained for Western Hemisphere aliens, and that their immigration

"continue to be regulated by the qualitative restrictions in the law, such as

those relating to literacy, health, morals, and economic conditions." 38/

In its 1953 report, the President's Commission commented favorably on the

continuation of the numerically unrestricted Western Hemisphere natives, as

follows:

The present nonquota status of immigrants from the Western
Hemisphere is another recognition of the foreign policy aspects
of immigration law. Theoretically and practically, the national
origins formula could have been applied to these nations, too.
But here our "good neighbor" policy and considerations of
hemispheric foreign relations seem to have prevailed. 39/

Immigration during the decade 1951-1960 totalled 2,515,479, the highest

since the 1920s. This was not surprising, since the two intervening decades

included the depression of the 1930s, and World War II. The gap between

Eastern and Western Hemisphere immigration also narrowed: of the 2.5 million

entries, almost a million entered from the Western Hemisphere.

Less than half of the immigrants who entered during the 1950s were

admitted under the quota system., 40/ While many came under special temporary

laws enacted to permit the admission of refugees and family members outside

the quotas, many others entered as nonquota immigrants (e.g. from the Western

Hemisphere) under the basic law. The gradual recognition that the national

origins quota system was not functioning effectively as a means of regulating

immigration was an important factor leading to the major policy revision

which came in 1965.



38/ S. Rept. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 473.

39/ President's Commission report (1953), p. 46.

40/ Bennett (1963), p. 226.









CRS-19


The Mexican Bracero Program, 1951-1964

Beginning in the early 1950s until the mid-1960s, the admission of Mexican

temporary farm workers was authorized by separate legislation than that author-

izing the entry of all other temporary workers, from the Western Hemisphere and

elsewhere. P.L. 78, 41/ authorizing the continuation of the Mexican bracero

program, was enacted in 1951 and remained in effect until the end of 1964.

All other temporary workers have been admitted under the terms of the

P.L. 414, the Immigration and Nationality Act, since it went into effect on

December 24, 1952. The legislation, as amended, remains the authority for

the admission of temporary workers under the so-called BWI (British West

Indies) program, including Jamaica which has gained its independence.

Since the termination of the Mexican bracero program in 1964, BWI workers

have regularly accounted for the largest single group of temporary agricul-

tural workers, ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 annually.

P.L. 78 was enacted in 1951 largely in response to the domestic farm

manpower shortage resulting from the Korean War, and Mexico's dissatisfaction

with the terms of the 1949 agreement governing the temporary export of its

workers. The act was an amendment to the Agricultural Act of 1949, and thus

was processed by different committees than those which traditionally handled

immigration legislation. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that P.L. 78 and

P.L. 414, the Immigration and Nationality Act discussed above, were not

only enacted within a year of each other, but by the same Congress.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 restricted quota immigration

from the Eastern Hemisphere to 154,657 a year. At the same time, close to



41/ Act of July 12, 1951, 65 Stat. 119.










CRS-20


200,000 temporary Mexican bracero workers were admitted in 1952, and more than

300,000 were admitted in 1954. Participation in the bracero program rose to

a high of 445,197 in 1956, and remained above 400,000 for the rest of the

decade. Illegal migration was also running high during the early years of

1950s, although it was brought under control by 1955.

Observers have commented on the apparent contradiction in our immigration

policy reflected in the relatively unconcerned attitude toward both legal and

illegal Mexican temporary workers, in contrast to the restrictionist attitude

toward immigrants and refugees from the Eastern Hemisphere embodied in the

Immigration and Nationality Act. Quoting one author:

With illegal immigration from Mexico rising in an almost
geometric progression, the 1944-1954 decade represented a
curious social paradox: the political forces clamoring for
an ever more restrictionist general immigration policy were
either strangely silent with respect to the situation on our
southern border or openly condoned it. The late Senator
Pat McCarran, co-author of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, whose name in most person's minds is synonymous with
restrictionist immigration thinking, defended the illegal
traffic over our southern border on the grounds that legal
entry of Mexicans for employment in American agriculture
and industry involved too much "red tape." 42/

A probable explanation for this apparent contradiction is that the Mexican

temporary workers and illegal entrants were not perceived as permanent addi-

tions to our population; nor were they perceived as posing a threat on national

security grounds as Communist infiltrators, although this possibility was

raised. Pressure from the farm bloc in Congress was also a major factor in

bringing in the temporary workers.

The principal problem during the first half of the bracero program,

ending in the 1950s, was illegal migration. This was effectively, albeit



42/ Hadley, Eleanor. A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem. Law
and Contemporary Problems. Duke University School of Law, Vol. XXI, spring 1956,
p. 336.









CRS-21


controversially, stopped by "Operation Wetback," a largescale law enforcement

operation by INS during 1954 and 1955 which ended with the declaration in

the 1955 INS Annual Report that, "The so-called 'wetback' problem no longer

exists. The border has been secured." 43/

The number of braceros contracted annually increased rapidly, more than

doubling from 1953 to 1956, as the legal temporary program became the princip.

source of alien labor. This brought with it its own problems. Evidence that

the alien worker program was adversely affecting domestic labor in certain

"bracero-dominated" areas and occupations was set forth in a highly critical

report issued in October 1959 by a four-member group of consultants appointed

by Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell.

The consultants' report stated that Congress had two purposes in enacting

P.L. 78, the first being to "obtain agricultural workers from Mexico to meet

peak labor shortages." They concluded that, based on 8 years' experience in

administering the law, the Department of Labor had been successful in meeting

this goal and, incidentally and significantly, in controlling illegal entry:

Almost one-half million Mexicans were brought into the
country last year in an orderly and organized fashion to
supplement the domestic farm workforce. The existence of
such a legal importation system has facilitated the elimina-
tion of the illegal entry of Mexicans wetbacksks"). Although
improvement in compliance activity is indicated, the mechanics
for recruiting Mexicans, operating reception centers, transpor-
ting braceross" and policing their conditions of employment have
been improving each year. 44/

The second major objective of the law identified by the consultants was

to "insure that our own domestic farm workers will not be adversely affected



43/ U.S. Department of Justice. Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 1955, p. 15.

44/ U.S. Department of Labor. Mexican Farm Labor Program. Consultants
Report, October 1959. Reprinted in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry. Hearings, 87th Cong., 1st sess., Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1961, p. 268.









CRS-22


by the employment of Mexicans." Here the Department of Labor was found to be

"much less successful." 45/ Despite the prohibition in the law against the

admission of workers unless it was determined that they would not have an

adverse effect on the wages and working conditions of domestic workers, it

was found that they had in fact had such an effect in a variety of ways.

There were indications that the preference of some employers for Mexican

labor had forced domestic workers to seek other job opportunities; that the

use of foreign workers had deprived domestic farmworkers of employment by

causing the already short work season to be further compressed; and, perhaps

most significantly, that the availability of foreign workers had prevented

normal competition for workers in the open market and a consequent rise in

wage levels. 46/

The ending of the bracero program during the 1960s was the result of the

growing opposition to the program from labor and social welfare groups, the

reduced demand for agricultural labor because of increasing mechanization of

cotton, and a tighter administration of the program by the Labor Department.

In other words, the bracero workers became less necessary and attractive at

the same time that the political climate was shifting away from support for

the program because of concern about the welfare of domestic migrant workers.

The implications of the bracero program for U.S.-Mexican relations were

of increasing importance during the 1960s and apparently impeded the program's

demise. According to Richard Craig, "Had it not been for its diplomatic

ramifications, the bracero program would not have been extended beyond 1963

and perhaps not beyond 1961." 47/ The importance of the program to Mexico



45/ Ibid.

46/ Ibid., pp. 272-273.

47/ Craig, Richard. The Bracero Program, Interest Groups and Foreign
Policy. Austin, University of Texas Press, 1971, p. 196.








CRS-23


was made clear in a 1963 letter from the Mexican Ambassador protesting its

abrupt termination, and warning that this would lead inevitably to an increase

in illegal immigration:

The Government of Mexico considers that there would be
no call for any observation whatever concerning the aforesaid
action, had the need for Mexican labor that has existed for
a number of years among the farmers in various parts of the
United States disappeared, or if systems other than those
used so far were available to meet that need. It is not
to be expected that the termination of an international
agreement governing and regulating the rendering of service
by Mexican workers in the United States will put an end to
that type seasonal migration. The aforesaid agreement is
not the cause of that migration; it is the effect or result
of the migratory phenomenon. Therefore, the absence of an
agreement would not end the problem but rather would give
rise to a de facto situation: the illegal introduction of
Mexican workers into the United States, which would be
extremely prejudicial to the illegal workers and, as
experience has shown, would also unfavorably affect
American workers, which is precisely what the legislators
of the United States are trying to prevent. 48/

Although the causal relation between the two events is complex and controversi-

al, without question illegal migration as measured by INS apprehension

statistics began to increase dramatically after the termination of the bracero

program in December 1964 (table 2).


The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments

The 1965 amendments to the 1952 Act repealed the national origins quota

system and, according to one authority, "represented the most far-reaching

revision of immigration policy in the United States since the First Quota Act

of 1921." 49/ In place of nationality and ethnic considerations, they



48/ Congressional Record, vol. 109, Aug. 15, 1963: 15203.

49/ Harper, Elizabeth J. Immigration Laws of the United States, 3rd ed.
Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1975, p. 38.










CRS-24





TABLE 2
DEPORTABLE ALIENS LOCATED, ALIENS DEPORTED, AND ALIENS REQUIRED TO DEPART
YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1892-1976, JULY-SEPTEMBER 1976,
AND YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1977-1978

Deportable' A I i e n s ex p e 1 led
Period aliens located T Aliens Aliens required
S 1/ Total deported I to depart 2/


1892-1978 .................

1892-1900 .........................
1901-1910 .........................
1911-1920 .........................
1921-1930 .........................

1931-1940 .........................
1931 ............................
1932 ............................
1933 ............................
1934 ............................
1935 ............................
1936 ............................
1937 ...........................
1938 ............................
1939 ............................
1940 ............................

1941-1950 .........................
1941 ............................
1942 ...... ....................
1943 ............................
1944 ............................
1945 ............................
1946 .............................
1947 ............................
1948 ............................
1949 ............................
1950 ............................

1951-1960 .........................
1951 ............................
1952 ............................
1953 ............................
1954 ............................
1955 ............................
1956 ............................
1957 ............................
1958 ............................
1959 ............................
1960 .............................

1961-1970 .........................
1961 ............................
1962 ............................
1963 ............................
1964 ............................
1965 ............................
1966 ............................
1967 ............................
1968 ............................
1969 ............................
1970 ............................


1971 ............................
1972 ............................
1973 ............................
1974 ............................
1975 ............................
197L ..........................
1976 TQ .........................
1977 .........................
1978 ............................


1 .195.17S


1 1. QI A?7


777. 48


3.127 3,127
11,558 11,558
S27,912 27,912
128,484 164,390 92,157 72,233

147.457 210.416 117.086 93,330
22,276 29,861 18,142 11,719
22,735 30,201 19,426 10,775
20,949 30,212 19,865 10,347
10,319 16,889 8,879 8,010
11,016 16,297 8,319 7,978
11,728 17,446 9,195 8,251
13,054 17,617 8,829 8,788
12,851 18,553 9,275 9,278
12,037 17,792 8,202 9,590
10,492 15,548 6,954 8,594

1.377.210 1.581.774 110.849 1.470.925
11,294 10,938 4,407 6,531
11,784 10,613 3,709 6,904
11,175 16,154 4,207 11,947
31,174 39,449 7,179 32,270
69,164 80,760 11,270 69,490
99,591 116,320 14,375 101,945
193,657 214,543 18,663 195,880
192,779 217,555 20,371 197,184
288,253 296,337 20,040 276,297
468,339 579,105 6,628 572,477

3,598,949 4.013.547 129.887 3.883,660
509,040 686,713 13,544 673,169
543,535 3/ 723,959 20,181 703,778
885,587 905,236 19,845 885,391
1,089,583 1,101,228 26,951 1,074,277
254,096 247,797 15,028 232,769
87,696 88,188 7,297 80,891
59,918 68,461 5,082 63,379
53,474 67,742 7,142 60,600
45,336 64,598 7,988 56,610
70,684 59,625 6,829 52,796

1.608,356 1.430.902 96,374 1.334.528


88,823
92,758
88,712
86,597
110,371
138,520
161,608
212,057
283,557
345,353


420,126
505,949
655,968
788,145
766,600
875,915
221,824
1,042,215
1,057,977


59,821
61,801
76,846
81,788
105,406
132,851
151,603
189,082
251,463
320,241


387,713
467,193
584,847
737,564
679,252
793,092
199,207
897,243
1,003,886


7,438
7,637
7,454
8,746
10,143
9,168
9,260
9,130
10,505
16,893


17,639
16,266
16,842
18,824
23,438
27,998
.,927
30,228
28,371


52,383
54,164
69,392
73,042
95,263
123,683
142,343
179,952
240,958
303,348


370,074
450,927
568,005
718,740
655,814
765,004
190,280
867,015
975,515


1/ Aliens apprehended first recorded in
ended. Since 1960, figures are for
violators.
2/ Aliens required to depart first recol
3/ Adjustment made for 1952.


1925. Prior to 1960, represents total aliens actually appre-
total deportable aliens located, including nonwillful crewmen


rded in 1927.


United States Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service


I 11 6 > .lL








CRS-25


substituted a system based primarily on reunification of families and needed

skills.

The legislative history of the 1965 amendments 50/ to the Immigration and

Nationality Act began during the first session of the 88th Congress, with

President John Kennedy's message to Congress on July 23, 1963, recommending

extensive reform of the immigration law, including the abolition of the

national origins quota system. The administration bill was introduced by

Senator Philip Hart (S. 1932) and Congressman Emanuel Celler (H.R. 7700),

but hearings were not held until after President Kennedy's death and no

action was taken by the 88th Congress. A Johnson Administration measure,

closely patterned after the Kennedy bill, was introduced and processed during

the 89th Congress, and signed into law on October 3, 1965.

The circumstances which led to this major shift in policy in 1965 were

a complex combination of changing public perceptions and values, politics,

and legislative compromise. Public support for the repeal of the national

origins quota system reflected genuine changes in public attitudes toward

race and national origins. The 1965 immigration legislation was as much a

product of the mid-1960s and the heavily Democratic 89th Congress which also

produced major civil rights legislation, as the 1952 Act had been a product

of the Cold War period of the early 1950s.

Senator Edward Kennedy, the Senate floor leader for the 1965 amendments,

analyzed the question "as to why Congress acted in 1965" in part as follows:

There is little doubt that of key importance was the
unusual parliamentary situation in Congress, where the large
Democratic majority was generally responsive to the spirit,



50/ Act of Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 911.









CRS-26


if not the letter, of the administration's proposal.
Republican leaders were also ready to act on the issue. .

The legislative history of the bill, especially the
drawing of a consensus which, in effect, neutralized any
significant opposition both within and without the Congress,
generated an atmosphere receptive to reform which was consonant
with changing attitudes among our citizens on questions of
race and national origin. 51/

As Senator Kennedy notes, the compromise and accommodations which went on

throughout the processing of the legislation were of considerable importance in

neutralizing the opposition. In its final form, the bill contained several

key provisions--specifically, the Western Hemisphere ceiling, and the labor

certification provision--which made the bill acceptable to those who feared

increased immigration and adverse competition from immigrants in the labor

market. These amendments were essential to the bill's final enactment.

The 1965 amendments replaced the national origins quota system as the

primary control of Eastern Hemisphere immigration with an annual ceiling on

Eastern Hemisphere immigration of 170,000 and a 20,000 per country limit.

Within these restrictions, immigrant visas were distributed according to a

seven-category preference system placing priority, in order, on family

reunification, attracting needed skills, and refugees. The 1965 law also

provided that effective July 1, 1968, Western Hemisphere immigration would be

limited by an annual ceiling of 120,000, without per-country limits or a

preference system. The adoption of this provision is discussed in more

detail below.



51/ Kennedy, Edward M. The Immigration Act of 1965. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 367, Sept. 1966, p. 149.








CRS-27


Cuban Refugees

The approximately 700,000 Cuban refugees who have entered the United

States since 1959 have constituted a major source of Western Hemisphere migra-

tion to this country. More recent, and much smaller, groups of Western

Hemisphere refugees have included Chileans and Haitians.

Large numbers of Cuban refugees began entering in 1961 following the

severing of diplomatic relations between the United States and communist Cuba.

The numbers decreased with the cessation of commercial flights between Havana

and Miami following the missile crisis of October 1962 although refugees

continued to arrive, some coming in small boats across the straits of Florida.

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson announced the Cuban Airlift

Program, and the numbers increased dramatically, tapering off in recent years.

The law relating to the admission of the Cuban refugees has been particu-

larly complex and confused. For example, until 1976, Cuban refugees who

adjusted to immigrant,status were charged to the 120,000 ceiling on Western

Hemisphere immigration, an action subsequently declared illegal by a U.S.

district court. 51a/ -The visa numbers previously used by the Cuban refugees

have been "recaptured" and :are being made available to other Western

Hemisphere immigrants. Legislation has been enacted by the 96th Congress 51b/

to provide a comprehensive and uniform policy for the admission and resettlement

of all refugees who meet the definition contained within the law, regardless of

their country of origin.



51a/ Silva v. Bell, N.D. Ill., No. 76-C-4268 (October 10, 1978).

51b/ Act of March 17, 1980, P.L. 96-212.








CRS-28


The Western Hemisphere Ceiling and the 1976 and 1978 Amendments

The imposition of a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration represented

a departure from past immigration policy that was second in importance only

to the repeal of the national origins quota system. The inclusion of a

numerical restriction on Western Hemisphere immigration in the 1965 amendments

was the result of a growing concern that immigration would increase signifi-

cantly as a result of the population pressure in Latin America, combined with

political considerations relating to the passage of the legislation.

The debate for and against the ceiling turned basically on the issue of

how many more immigrants would be entering this country, on the one hand,

versus foreign policy considerations on the others. There is considerable

evidence that the majority in the Congress, as well as of the American public,

were in favor of restricting rather than liberalizing immigration, and felt

that a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration was thus necessary. A

Harris poll, cited in the Washington Post on May 31, 1965, indicated that

those polled were against allowing more people into the United States by a

margin of 2 to 1. 52/ The argument in favor of a ceiling on Western Hemisphere

immigration given the most weight was population pressure. It was noted in

the "Additional Views" appended to the House Judiciary Committee report on

the 1965 legislation that:

The most compelling reason for placing a numerical
ceiling upon the Western Hemisphere relates to the world-
wide population explosion and the possibility of a sharp
increase in immigration from Western Hemisphere countries.



52/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Naturalization. Immigration. Hearings, Part 2, 89th Cong.,
1st sess., 1965, p. 666-667.







CRS-29


Testimony before the Judiciary Committee identified Latin
America as the area of greatest future population growth. 53/

In opposition, the Johnson administration strongly opposed the imposition

of a ceiling on foreign policy grounds. The argument that such a ceiling

would, in the words of Representative Emanuel Cellar, "muddy the waters of

foreign affairs," 54/ combined with support for the administration in its

judgment on conduct of foreign policy, formed the basis for the case against

a numerical ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration.

As enacted, the 1965 amendments provided for a ceiling of 120,000 on

Western Hemisphere immigration, to go into effect July 1, 1968, "unless

legislation inconsistent herewith" was enacted. At the same time, the 1965

Act created a Select Commission-on Western Hemisphere Immigration which was

instructed to recommend "whether, and if so how, numerical limitations.should

be imposed upon immigration to the United States from the nations of the

Western Hemisphere."

It should be emphasized that, while the Western Hemisphere ceiling was

perhaps the most controversial provision of the 1965 amendments, it was not

viewed as being the most important. The major purpose of the legislation,

both as introduced and as enacted into law, was the abolition of the

national origins quota system which, in one form or another, had governed

Eastern Hemisphere immigration since 1921. This is at least a partial

explanation of why the numerical ceiling on the Western Hemisphere was

not more fully integrated into the immigration law, and why it was not

accompanied by a preference system and per-country limit, as in the case

of the Eastern Hemisphere. It was also assumed by many that these matters



53/ H. Rept. 89-745, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965, p. 48.

54/ Congressional Record [daily ed.], Aug. 25, 1965: 20955.








CRS-30


would be reviewed in detail by the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere

Immigration, and that further legislation would be recommended by that

Commission relating to the ceiling.

The Select Commission had serious reservations about the ceiling and

recommended that the effective date be postponed for a year in order to

permit further study. 55/ This recommendation was not acted upon, and

legislation fully integrating the Western Hemisphere ceiling into the

immigration law was not enacted until 1976. The Immigration and Nationality

Act Amendments of 1976 56/ extended the 20,000 per-country limit and a

slightly modified version of the seven-category preference system equally

to the Western Hemisphere, retaining the separate ceilings of 170,000 for

the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere.

The only provision of any real controversy in the 1976 amendments

was the extension of the 20,000 per-country limit to Mexico. Mexican

immigration under the Western Hemisphere ceiling had significantly exceeded

20,000 every year since the ceiling had gone into effect. Because of this

demonstrated demand, there had been support in the past for a higher

per-country limit for the contiguous countries. However, by the 94th

Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, together with the Departments of

Justice and State, had reached a consensus that the 20,000 per-country

limit should be extended to all countries of the world. Quoting from the

House report:

The decision by this Committee to limit all countries
to 20,000 has been based primarily on the desire that this



55/ U.S. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Report.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., January 1968, p. 9.

56/ Act of October 20, 1976, 90 Stat. 2703.









CRS-31


legislation mark the final end of an immigration quota
system based on nationality, whether the rationale behind
it be the alleged national origins of our citizenry, as it
was in the past, or geographical proximity--the argument
previously advanced for preferential treatment of Canada
and Mexico. The proposed legislation rejects the concept of
a "special relationship" between this country and certain
other countries as a basis for our immigration law, in favor
of a uniform treatment for all countries. 57/

Legislation enacted in 1978 58/'combined the separate ceiling on the two

hemispheres in a single worldwide ceiling of 290,000 with a single preference

system. 58a/ According to the House Judiciary Committee report, this marked "the

third and final step in the elimination from our immigration law of discrimi-

nation on the basis of place or origin." 59/ With the enactment of this

legislation, quoting from the House report,

our immigration law, for the first time since the
1920's, will fully endorse the concept of equality under
the law for all who wish to come here. At the same time,
it in no way increases present levels of immigration.
By combining the hemispheric ceilings of 170,000 and
120,000 into a worldwide ceiling of 290,000 and applying
the preference system equally to all countries, the
instant bill eliminates the last vestiges of a system
under which intending immigrants derive special benefits
or conversely, are disadvantaged because of their country
of birth. 60/


The Development of U.S. Immigration Law: Conclusions

It is possible to see the 65 years during which immigration to this

country has been subject to numerical limitations in terms of a 40-year

period when the national origins quota system was the principal de jure



57/ H. Rept. 94-1553, 94th Cong., 2d sess., 1976, p. 9.

58/ Act of Oct. 5, 1978, 92 Stat. 907.

58a/ P.L. 96-212, the Refugee Act of 1980, adjusted the worldwide
ceiling to 280,000 for the remainder of FY 1980, and to 270,000 beginning
in FY 1981. This does not include refugees, who are handled separately.

59/ H. Rept. 95-1206, 95th Cong., 2d sess., 1978, p. 5.


60/ Ibid., p. 7.









CRS-32


controlling factor of our immigration law; and a 15-year reaction against this

system, in favor of the equal treatment of all countries. This process was

completed in 1978 with the adoption of a single worldwide ceiling and

preference system and a 20,000 per-country limit applied equally to all

countries regardless of their size, cultural affinities, proximity, and/or

strategic importance to the United States. In short, an openly discriminatory

system has been followed by one emphasizing equality.

In neither case did foreign policy play an important role. Both our

40-year experience with the national origins quota system and our current

policy of equal treatment of all nations reflect fundamentally domestic goals

and aspirations. The United States' desire in the 1920s to protect and

preserve what was then perceived as its national heritage led to the

adoption of the national quota system. This system was repudiated in the

context of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, rather than on the

predominantly foreign policy grounds previously advanced by Presidents Truman

and Eisenhower. The goal of treating all nations equally, while compatible

with some foreign policy considerations, is essentially a reflection of

domestic values and, it is argued by some, is an unrealistic response to the

current demands of foreign policy, particularly as regards to Mexico.

To date, less emphasis has been placed on the Western Hemisphere than

on the Eastern Hemisphere in development of U.S. immigration law. The

national origins quota system was never applied to the Western Hemisphere.

By the same token, the inclusion of the Western Hemisphere in the 1965

reform legislation occurred as something of an afterthought and, to some

extent, in exchange for the repeal of the national origins quota system.









CRS-33


Less attention has been paid to regulating the entry of immigrants

from the Western Hemisphere for a variety of reasons. These include the

spirit of Pan-Americanism--foreign policy has played a more important role

in determining immigration policy for our own continent than abroad. Another

reason is that in the past significantly fewer immigrants have entered from

the Western than the Eastern Hemisphere--a situation which has been reversed

in the past 2 decades. Additionally, it seems clear that U.S. employers have

looked upon other countries in the Western Hemisphere, particularly Mexico and

the West Indies, as supplementary sources of labor and have lobbied for a

relatively laissez-faire approach to migration,










































'








(-































I








-?









CRS-35


II. CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

The major source of immigration to the United States has shifted from

Europe to North America and Asia. This is clear, first, from an examination of

table 3, comparing immigration during the 10-year periods 1956-1965 and 1967-

1976. During the latter decade, North America, including Mexico, Cuba, and

the West Indies, led all other regions with 1,507,434. While this number was

augmented by the flow of Cuban refugees, Mexico accounted for one-third of the

total, with 550,964, in what appears to be a continuing trend. The total

figure for North American immigration represented an increase of 43.4 percent

over the previous decade.

This is dwarfed by the increase of 369.2 percent in Asian immigration,

from 224,342 during 1956-1965 to 1,052,688 during 1967-1976. However, the

Asian increase clearly reflects the liberalization of the immigration law

regarding Asia. Western Hemisphere immigration, in contrast, has increased

in spite of the adoption of the annual numerical ceiling of 120,000 on this

hemisphere as of July 1, 1968. European immigration fell 27 percent in

1967-1976 compared to the previous 10-year period, and was exceeded by both

North America and Asia.

The statistics on apprehensions of illegal entrants are another dramatic

indication of the pressure for immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

Apprehensions have exceeded 1 million for the past 3 years (table 2).

Approximately 90 percent of those apprehended have been Mexicans, but this is

generally believed to be primarily a reflection of the concentration of INS

law enforcement personnel on the U.S.-Mexican border. Additionally, the

apprehension statistics measure arrests rather than individuals, and are

believed to include a large but unknown number of multiple arrests of the same

people.








TABLE 3
IMMIGRATION BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH
FISCAL YEARS 1956-1965 AND 1967-1976


Country of Origin

TOTAL


EUROPE

Austria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
U.S.S.R.
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia
Other Europe

ASIA

China and Taiwan
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Jordan and Palest
Korea
Lebanon
Philippines
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Vietnam
Other Asia


1956-1965 1967-1976

2,878,153 3,883,219


:in


1,400,051

23,227
22,587
14,155
41,110
309,762
46,696
57,878
71,023
197,261
48,853
86,809
28,977
13,530
17,191
20,850
18,254
26,428
248,650
40,238
66,572

224.342

43,445
5,965
5,416
18,425
5,161
2,756
13,070
48,931
e 7,088
16,361
4,308
27,621
2,194
1,098
9,345
986
12,172


'1016,110

6,915
17,804
6,337
21,631
89,211
129,076
15,546
18,601
200,279
12,994
43,968
122,306
16,980
37,773
8,262
9,253
21,356
147,135
61,833
28,850

1,052,688

166,480
45,608
115,800
5,723
21,984
16,291
20,350
44,068
24,849
166,422
18,003
270,078
9,795
32,184
18,866
22,811
53,367


Percent
Change

+34.9


-27.4

-70.2
-21.2
-55.2
-47.4
-71.2
+176.4
-73.1
-73.8
+1.5
-73.4
-49.4
+322.1
+25.5
+119.7
-60.4
-49.3
-19.2
-40.8
+53.7
-56.7

+369.2

+283.2
+664.6
+2,038.1
-68.9
+326.0
+491.1
+55.8
-9.9
+250.6
+917.2
+317.9
+877.8
+346.4
+2,831.1
+101.9
+2,213.5
+338.4


Country of Origin

AFRICA


Eoyot
Nigeria
Rhodesia
South Africa
Uganda
Other Africa

OCEANIA

Australia
Other Oceania

NORTH AMERICA

Canada
Mexico
Barbados
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Haiti
Jamaica
Trinidad & Tobago
Costa Rica
El Salvador.
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Other North America

SOUTH AMERICA

Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana*
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Other South America

OTHER COUNTRIES


Percent
1956-1965 1967-1976 Change

22,924 63,978 +179.1


6,986 25,966
677 4,787
500 602
3,171 5,536
82 2,283
11,508 24,804

11916 30207

6,270 13,733
5,646 16,474

1,050,983 1 507,434

321,682 138,945
419,770 550,964
3,506 16,413
132,267 302,638
40,047 121,818
13,154 56,387
14,853 130,404
3,646 59,728
12,868 11,778
11,156 19,006
9,003 19,098
11,685 13,316
12,841 7,129
17,688 16,500
S26,817 43,310

167,772 212778

35,269 25,699
16,444 14,770
10,191 10,107
46,955 60,665
22,620 43,361
2,135 23,029
16,825 16,265
2,023 6,159
8,218 5,677
7,092 7,046

165 24


+271.7
+607.1
+20.4
+74.6
+2,684.1
+115.3

+153.5

+119.0
+191.8

+43.4

-56.8
+31.3
+368.1
+128.8
+204.2
+328.7
+778.0
+1,538.2
-8.5
+70.4
+112.1
+14.0
-44.5
-6.7
+61.5

+26.8

-27.1
-10.2
-0.8
+29.2
+91.7
+978.6
-3.3
+204.4
-30.9
-0.6

-85.5


Source: U.S. Interagency Task Force
March 1979, p. 124.


on Immigration Policy, Staff Report,









CRS-37


According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau preliminary review of studies of

the illegal population in the United States, "there are currently no reliable

estimates of the number of illegal residents in the country or of the net

volume of illegal immigration to the United States in any recent past

period." 61/ However, the authors are willing to offer "cautious speculations"

to the effect that: (1) the total number of illegal residents in the United

States is almost certainly below 6 million, and may be only 3.5 to 5 million;

(2) because of the high degree of return migration, the Mexican component

is almost certainly less than 3 million, and may be only 1.5 to 2.5 million;

and (3) because they tend to stay, the non-Mexican component makes up a larger

share of the illegal population than is commonly believed. 62/

It should be noted that these, too, are speculations, with no firmer

base than some others that have preceded them. The figure of three to six

million appears to be a widely accepted current estimate of the illegal

population, allowing for seasonal fluctuations. 63/ However, the final

word is that we do not know. The Census Bureau paper concludes:

Researchers and policymakers will have to live with
the fact that the number of illegal residents in the United
States cannot be closely quantified, Therefore, policy
options dependent on the size of this group must be
evaluated in terms which recognize this uncertainty. 64/





61/ Siegel, Jacob S., Jeffrey S. Passel, and J. Gregory Robinson,
Preliminary Review of Existing Studies of the Number of Illegal Residents
in the United States. Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Jan. 1980 (Rev.), p. 18.

62/ Ibid., pp. 19-20.

63/ For example, U.S. Interagency Task Force on Immigration Policy, Staff
Report. Washington, U.S. Depts. of Justice, Labor, and State, March 1979,
p. 30.


64/ Siegel, et al. (1980), p. 20.








CRS-38


In addition to current levels of legal and illegal migration, other

factors which most probably will have to be taken into consideration in the

formulation of future immigration policy for the Western Hemisphere include

population growth in other countries in this hemisphere, projected labor force

needs in the United States, foreign policy considerations, and energy needs.

Using Mexico as an example to illustrate the interaction of these needs

and their potential relevance to immigration policy, Mexico's labor force is

expected to increase by more than 100 percent over the next two decades. The

long-term prognosis is hopeful; the population growth rate has slowed from 3.5

percent in 1972 to an estimated 2.9 percent in 1978. 65/ However, the short-

term future pressure on the Mexican labor market is apparent from the fact that

almost half of Mexico's population is under 15 years of age. An estimated

600,000 to 800,000 new workers will be entering the already tight Mexican labor

market each year for the next 10 years. Current unemployment and underemploy-

ment in Mexico are estimated at 30-40 percent.

At the same time, a shortage of unskilled labor in the United States has

been predicted for the 1980s. Quoting Michael Wachter:

The bottom line of the labor supply analysis is that,
by 1985-1990, the number of young workers in the labor
force will be declining. The population in the younger
age group will be falling and their participation rates,
as opposed to the unprecedented increase during the 1970s,
will be largely flat. Comparing 1970-1977 with 1985-1990
indicates a demographic transition of immense proportions.
The changing outlook for immigration policy is largely a
function of the twist in the demographic age structure of
the labor force. 66/



65/ Nagel, John S. Mexico's Population Policy Turnaround. Population
Bulletin, v. 33, December 1978, pp. 3, 35.

66/ Wachter, Michael. The Labor Market and Immigration: the Outlook for
the 1980s. U.S. Interagency Task Force Staff Report Companion Papers. U.S.
Depts. of Justice, Labor, and State, Aug. 1979, p. 181.









CRS-39


Reasoning from the above demographic projections, Wachter predicts "that

illegal aliens will be in even greater demand in the United States in the

1980s than they are today." 67/ He argues that a new immigration policy is

needed to control the flow of migrants entering the country:

It should be recognized that the United States needs
a new immigration policy regardless of whether one believes
in easing or tightening restrictions on the number of new
entrants. In the current situation and with the coming
demographic twist [leading to a shortage of unskilled male
workers], pressures for increased illegal immigration will
grow substantially. As more illegal immigrants become
permanent "non-members" of society, the potential for
social, economic and political disruption will grow. The
United States must adopt a workable immigration policy;
that is, it must control the size of the flow of immigrants
and legalize the process. 68/

Clark Reynolds comes to similar conclusions about a future U.S. labor

force shortage, and notes that the projected shortage of U.S. workers will

coincide with a continued expansion of the Mexican labor force. He concludes:

In short the United States has an almost certain need
for migrant labor in the decades ahead, if it is to main-
tain its position in the international economy. The
migrants need not come from the south, but given the
likelihood of a sustained surplus of unskilled labor in
Mexico even by its highest growth projections, most of
the migrants will be Mexican. 69/

The foreign policy ramifications of the above are apparent. Again quoting

Reynolds:

The magnitude of Mexico's prospective economic and
population growth underscores the fact that changes south
of the border will have far more than incremental conse-
quences for the United States. Stresses and strains



67/ Ibid., p. 203.

68/ Ibid., p. 217.

69/ Reynolds, Clark. Labor Market Projections for the United States and
Mexico and their Relevance to Current Migration Controversies. Stanford Univer-
sity, Food Research Institute, July 6, 1979, p. 31.








CRS-40


within Mexico, if they occur, would shake the continent,
but success in Mexican development would be likely to
carry with it major benefits for her continental neighbors. 70/

The warning contained in this statement is more or less true of other of our

Western Hemisphere neighbors, particularly in the West Indies. Cuba serves as

an ever-present reminder of the extent to which "stresses and strains" in other

Western Hemisphere countries can "shake the continent." In the case of Mexico,

there is also the issue of energy and the question as to what effect it will

have on our policy in other areas, including immigration

Present immigration policy is undergoing a comprehensive review by the

Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, established for this

purpose by P.L. 95-412. The 16-member Commission is due to report to the

President and the Congress by March 1981. ,It seems probable that at that

point the Congress will undertaken major revision of U.S. immigration law

and policy, as it has just completed doing.with regards to refugees. 71/

It is likely that the Western Hemisphere will receive more attention

in any future formulation of immigration policy than it has in the past.

Possible specific options which have been considered before and are likely

to be considered again, separately or in combination, are: (1) an increased

ceiling on legal immigration from Mexico, the contiguous countries, or the

entire hemisphere; (2) a largescale temporary worker program, structured in

such a way as to avoid the more obvious problems of the Mexican bracero program;

(3) provisions aimed directly at illegal migration, such as employer sanctions

and tightened border control, with or without regularization of status of

certain undocumented aliens already present in the country ("amnesty").



70/ Ibid., p. 35.

71/ Act of March 17, 1980, P.L. 96-212.









CRS-41


There is increasing pressure from some quarters for a more restrictive

immigration policy than our current one--de facto and de jure. On the other

hand, it is argued by others that, based on our experience with illegal

migration during the past decade, it seems unlikely that we can stop those

who are truly determined to come, short of measures which we are unwilling

to take. This argument holds that it would be wisest to attempt to accommodate

this migration legally, in order to make it as beneficial as possible in

terms of both U.S. domestic needs and harmonious relations within the

Western Hemisphere.








CRS-42



APPENDIX




TABLE 13.
IMfIGRATION BY COUNTRY, FOR DECADES
1820-1978 1/


/From 1820-1867, figures represent alien passengers arrived; from 1868-1891 and 1895-1897, immigrant aliens
arrived: from 1892-1894 and 1898 to the present time, immigrant alicas admitted. Data for years
prior to 1906 relates to country whence alien came; thereafter, to country of last permanent
residence. because of changes in boundaries and-changes in-lists of countries, data
for certain countries is not comparable throughout./



Countries- 1820 1821-1830 1831-1840 1841-1850 1851-1860 1861-1870 1871-1880
18117 8118


All countries ..............

Europe ..........................
Austria-Hungary 2/ 5/ ...........
Belgium .........................
Denmark ........................
France .........................
Germany 2/ 5/ ...................
Great Britain: England ..........
Scotland .........
Wales ...........
Not specified 3/
Greece ................. ........
Ireland .........................
Italy ...........................
Netherlands ....................
Norway) 4,
wony) / .......................
Sueden$ -
Poland 5/ ......................
Portugal ...................,...
Romania 12/ .....................
Spain .........................
Switzerland .....................
U.S.S.R. 51 5/ .............
Other Europe ....................



Asia .............................
China ............. .............
India ...........................
Janan / ........................
T-rkey ..........................
Other Asia .....................



America ...........................
Canada & Neufoundland 8/ ........
Mexico 9 .......................
West Indies .....................
Central America .................
South America ...................



Africa ............................
Australia & New Zealand ...........
Pacific Islands (U.S. adm.) .......
Not specified .....................


8 385


14134309


599.125


7113:251 125f98.21f.


2.314.824


2.512.191


____... ..____ ... .. ... .. ....---- --------T-- -
7,690 98.797 95,61, 1,597,442 2.452.577 2.0651141 2,271.925

1 27 22 5,074 4,738 6,734 7,221
20 169 1.063 539 3.749 17,094 31,771
371 8,497 45,575 77,262 76,358 35,986 72,206
968 6,761 152,454 434,626 951,667 787,468 718,182
1,782 14,055 7,611 32,092 247,125 222,277 437,706
268. 2.912 2,667 3,712 38,331 38,769 87,564
170 185 1,261 6,319 4,313 6,631
360 7,942 65,347 229,979 132,199 341,537 16,142
S 20 49 16 31 72 210
3,614 50,724 207,381 780,719 914,119 435,778 436,871
30 409 2,253 1,870 9,231 11,725 55,759
49 1.078 1,412 8,251 10,789 9,102 16,541
3 91 1,201 13,903 20,931 (71,631 (95,323
(37,667 (115,922
5 16 369 105 1,164 2,027 12,970
35 145 829 550 1.055 2,658 14,082
S11
139 2,477 2,125 2,209 9,298 6,697 5,266
31 3,226 4,821 4,644 25,011 23,286 28,293
14 75 277 551 457 2,512 39,234
3 40 79 5 8 1,001



6 30 55 141 41,538 64,759 12&,160
1 2 8 35 41,397 64,301 123,201
1 8 39 36 43 69 163
186 149
1 20 7 59 83 131 404
3 1 11 15 72 243



387 11,564 33,424 62,469 746720 166,607 404,044


1


301


2,277
4,817
3,834
105
531



16


33,032


13,624
6,599
12,301
44
856



54


69,911


41.723
3,271
13,528
368
3.579


55


53,144


59,309
3,078
10,660
4A9
1,224


210


29,169


153,878
2,191
9,046
95
1,397


,..........

312
36

17,969


383.640
5,162
13,957
157
1,128


358
9,886
1,028
790


See footnotes at end of table.
United States Department of Justice
Igigraeion and Naturalization Service










CRS-43




TABLE 13.
I4CtGRATIOHNBY COUNTRY, FOR DECADES (Contd.)
1820-1978 1/


Countries 1881-1890 1891-1900 1901-1910 1911-1920 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941-1950


All countries 5 246 613 3 6 6


.................

Europe ..............................
Albania 11/ ......................
Austria)
Hungry) 2/ 5/ ....................
Belgium ...........................
Bulgaria- 10 ......................
Czechoslovakia 11/ ...............
Denmark ........................
Estonia ...........................
Finland 11/ .......................
France ...........................
Gerany 2/ 5/ .....................
Great Britain: Enland ............
Scotland ...........
Wales ..............
Not specified 3/ ...
Greece ............................
Ireland ...........................
Italy .............................
Latvia 11/ ........................
Lithuania 1/ .....................
Luxembourg 15/ ....................
Netherlands .......... ..........
Norway 4/ ......................
Poland 5/ ........................
Portugal ..........................
Romnia 12/ .......................
Spain .............................
Sweden 4/..........................
Switzerland .......................
U.S.S.R. 5/ 6/ ....................
Yugoslavia / .....................
Other Europe ......................



Asia ...............................
China ............................
Inda...............................

Turkey ............................
Other Asa ........................



Amric. ............................
Canada & Nevfoundland 8/ ..........
Mexico 9/ ........................
Wesr Indies ......................
Central America ..................
South America .....................
Other America 13/ .................



Africa ..............................
Australia & New Zealand .............
Pacific Islands (U.S. ada.) .........
Not specified 14/ ..................


R.7QT 1R :9.7'1.R11 4.107.209


,.- ^,.. --- ,^ -,..^,- -- ,- .-.,--- ,_.-- --,---

4.735,484 3,555,352 )8,056,040 j4,321,887 2,463,194 347,552 621.124
.- 2,040 85
(453,649 32,868 3,563 24,860
353,719 592,707 2,145,266 (442,693 30,680 7.861 3,469
20,177 18.167 41,635 33,746 15,846 4,817 12,189
160 39,280 22,533 2,945 938 375
-- 3,426 102,194 14,393 1 8,347
88,132 50,231 65,285 41,983 32,430 2,559 5,393
] 506 212
756 16,691 2,146 2,503
50,464 30,770 73,379 61,897 49,610 12,623 38,809
1,452,970 505,152 341,498 143,945 412.202 114,058 226,578
644,680 216,726 388,017 249,944 157,420 21,756 112,252
149,869 44,188 120,469 78,357 159,781 6,887 16,131
12,640 10,557 17,464. 13,107 13,012 735 3,209
168 67 -
2,308 15,979 167,519 184,201 51,084 9,119 8,973
655.482 388,416 339,065 146,181 220,591 13,167 26,967
307,309 651,893 2,045,877 '1,109,524 455,315 68,028 57.661
1,192 361
2,201 683
565 820
53,701 26,758 48,262 43,718 26,948 7,150 14,860
176,586 95,015 190,505 66,395 68,531 4,740 10,100
51,806 96,720 4.813 227,734. 17,026 7,571
16,978 27,508 69,149 89,732 29,994 3,329 7,423
6.348 12.750 53,008 13,311 67,646 3,871 1,076
4,419 8,731 27,935 68,611 28,958 3,258 2,898
391,776 226,266 249,534- 95,074 97,249 3,960 10,665
81,988 31,179 34,922 23,091 29,676 5.512 10.547
213,282 505,290 1,597,306 921,201 61,742 1,356 548
1,88 49064 i 5,835 1,576
682 122 665 8,111 22.983 2,361 3,983

....................... ............................. .......... ...........

69,942 74,862 323,543 247,236 112,059 16,081 1 32.360
61,711 14,799 20,605 21,278 29,907 4,928 16,709
269 68 4.713 2.082 1,86 496 1,761
2,270 25,942 129,797 : 3.837 33.462 1.948 1,555
3.782 30,425 157,369 134.066 33,824 1,065 798
1,910 3,628 11.059 5,973 12.980 i 7,644 11,537

.......... 11 ......... .......... ..............................
426,967 38.97 361671 1.516716 ,
4261967 38.977 I 361.888 11.143.671 1,516,716 160_037 354,_04
3 4~ 3 *~ j.Io


1,913
29,042
404-
2,304




857
7,017
5,557
789


3,3,1.
971
33.066
549
1,075




350
2,740
1,225
14,063
-.<*


179,440
49,642
107,548
8,192
17,280


7,368
11,975
1,049
33,523


4,1385 : 924,3153
219,004. 459,287
123,424 74.899
17.159 15.769
41,899 42,215
31

.. ..................o

8,443 6,286
12,348 8,299


1,047
1,147


42ZT
228


22,319
15,502
5,861
7.803
25


1,7503
2,231
780


1./ 1,
60,589
49.725
21,665
21,831
29,276



7.367
13,805
5,437
142


Se* footnote@ at end of table.
United States Department of Justice
emigration and Naturalization Service


825 431 1 035 039






CRS-44





TABLE 13.

DMGRUIM IT CUWMR, m MUB. (Ced.)
1820-1978 1/


I 1 I Tocal
Comries- 151-1960 196170 197-1975 1976 6 1977 1978 159 year,
I '(70 l 971


All m re..........................................


S......................................................
lbabsta 11/ ..................................................
Austria 27 ................................................
Gary .I /..................................... .......
elgi .....................................................
34e1aris 10 .................................... .............
Caschosloa.hi /. / ............................................

Rc-agna Il....I............................................
rk .... ............................................
teem .... .................................... .............
CI-L& .... ................................................
Free" .......................................... .............

Great aBrica: Rugland ......................... ............
S.otla d........................ .............
uales ........................... .............
ft pseified 1/ ................ .............
Cree .......... ........... ........ ......... ...........
Island ....................................................
Italy. .................. ............. .............
Lacits I/ ...................................... .............
Lithse o1oi / .................................... .............
LuSmisearrt / ................................... .............
Neterlands. .................................... ..............
NoTw 4ll ....................................................
Pud ............................................... ..............
Fartugall........................................ .............
smainis 12!/ ..................................... .............
St ... .. .............
Saes ........................................ ................
Switera 6/................................................ ...... .....
S.................................................*.*..*. .. .......
gear ta .................................... .............
Other Europe................................................ *



As s 1 ........................... ........*** .............
cMa 17 ....................................... ............/
adia / ..................................... ..............
asm 7/ ... ................................ .............
Tura ca .......................................... ........
otr A ............................ ... .............



ri ............./ .........................****** .............
-tamco 9f ...................................................


eagt Indi ............................................
Central A 8rica ............................ .
Sanch Amnrita .................................. .............
Other icgo 13/ .......................... ..... o ................


1010 47011 111 t7~tI1 010 ~51 lOan 0.0!


q5w AL. I


12 109A I


9V 1 i 1 -1- 1. 2.UJ


59
67,106
36,637
18,575
104.
918
10,964
185
4,925
51.121
477,765
156.171
32.854
2.589

47,608
57,332
185.491
332
242
684
52.277
22,935
9,985
19,588
1,039
7,894
21.697
17,675
584
8.225
8,155


98
20,621
5.401
9,192
619
3.273
9.201
163
4,192
45.237
190,796
174,452
29,849
2,052
3,675
85,969
37,461
214,111
510
562
556
30,606
15,484
53.339
76,065
2.331
44,659
17.116
18,453
2,336
20.381
4,203


lTn IftA I 17 771


156 25
6,961 519)
3,422 61)
2.414 5371
510 107
3,4A 267
2,230 400
45 10
1,413 232
12,277 2,030
37,070 6.642
52,506 11,644
4,410 997
465 105
2,207 424
56,191 8,553
6.359 962
93,506 7,993
90 20
94 21
164 17
4.780 850
1,963 287
16,808 3,192
52.016 11,031
4,156 1.670
20,760 2,758
3,043 568
4,113 776
7,211 7,417
19.139 2,310
2,071 310


90can II 1. 779


462'.31516 I0,.441 664,1
74,048 6,1.1~6T,6.:02,963


103.678 1

184Al
I
127)
119)
164.
23
56


43
560
- 1,960

209
40
99
2,198
265
2,032
6
8
10
288
78
820
2,693
340
625
168
187
1,751
589
76



17 77%


*4

626)
611
135
438
399
6
313
2.7L1
7,567
14,982

2541
455
124

6,994
923
7,032
16
30
24
1,182
-28
',-95
l0,D 17
1,628

860
4,677
:1,27
437


4,3!5.6-2
202,438
67,a27
137,029
264,160
1.128
33.44L
730.424
6.977.743
3,178.338
820.C63
45.127
$04,822
654,486
4,723.544
5,294.418
2.555
3,852
2.367
359,641
856.*7.
514.496
"45.354
170.891
259.,51
1.271,925
349,103
3.373,314
113.349
55.505


150 91.7 1.353.760


-~- -~ 4 -~ -~- I ~ -
9,637 34,764 44,300 9,923 3.031 12.313 .2213


9,657
1,973
46.250
2.207
88,707


34, 764
27.189
39,988
10;142
315,648


996.944 1.716.374


377.952
299,811
123,091
44,751
91.628
59,711


l ..*........

Africa .............................*............ ............. 14,092
Australl atd -New r ...ZA ..................................... 11,506
Pacific ZIsla (U.S. adm.) 16 ............... .............!.. .698
Not spettritd 1/ .............. .................******** 12.493


44,500
66,650
26,005
6.429
446,439



987,027


413.310 79,621
453.937 319,359
470,213 318,027
101,330 45,633
257,954 114,641
19,630 746



28,954 27,948
19.562 11,155
1,769 935
3,384 5,799


,925
16,130
4,789
956
114,925 i


,t, 1*0 I


11,439 3,39 18.003 -2.


11.439
58,354
65,734
10,097
23,355
1


3,031 L 3 ..-73
4,128 16.349 19,145
1,215 4,545 .' 00
262 991 22
29,089 3113.9&. 216.05L


3.591 18,003 I23,45
16,095 44,646 926.o1
15.364 109,959 37.717
2;360 1 16,892 :0.481
6.362 33,671 -.,080
3 16
** .. ...... .... ........

1,967 9,612 10.236
o60 I 2,54. 2.665
60 195 137
603 1,900 I 2.082


406.:38
385.;55
..382.319


Q.050.7I'


-.704.657
'.'23.7:7

31:.363
713.024
109,-39


Sice July 6 8, t1he data is for scal yers ondi Je0. Pfiar lofIsa year 1 6, tb petoa rsered are ao ol1( r td it L-
1831 .sd 113-1549. the years enaed 0 Septembr 30-1843 c-ms 9 mothe: ad rs 1832-1842 sad 1850-1867, the ears 42eded o0 Des er 31-
183 snd 1850 c r 15 nths. Por 1868. the 7J2r1od l nied a Je 30 and cam 6 rth The trnittio, quarter (0) far 1976 cIers. the
3-smth Period. .uly-S teammer 1976.
2/ Deta for Asctri-Rluna 7 ws asC r lte l 861. Austria ad lary has been herded neprately iao 1905. Fr 1938-1945, Austria
s included In Germ y.
3/ Crest ritain noI specified. From 1901-1951. included t other Europe.
Z/ Fem 1820-1868 th fIguresm for a y g d m aSweden are cadined.
/ Plsd rcrned asa s anrt country m 1820o-198 ad aIn 1920. From 1899-19. Poland iL isluded with Austrias-Hagry, Cermsu. and
Russia.
6/ reo 1931-193. the U.S.S.R. is broken dawn tone r osMa U.S.S3.. and Asite U.S.S.R. Stine 19" total U.S.S.l. has been reported in eumpe.
71 e record of imgracioa fir 4jJ until 1881.
/ Prier t 1920, Can"a sN tl Nte foa a at ret Morded as British Borth America. rm 1820-1898. the figure include ll British North America
peesees"" .
9V No record of mmetir ftoa f. limic ft.m 1856-1893.
I/ Bulgaria, Setbia, and Mosomote o ere first ret to n 189I9-. ule.rtis hI a bes reported separtely siace 1920; 1 t1i 1920. a seanrate
/ mmm m e us"'T or the t ism of Serbs, Crests, and Slewmess. Siace 1922. the Serbs. Cret, sa" 5lo*Se t m has bem recorded as

11t C mert addd to the lit sti the beotiang of world War e included with the caeries to whch th y belonged. iure awailable
since 1920 for Cnsca.iloe ki- and FnLand and, stice 1924, ftr Albeita, Iscns. Lc.wta, mad Lithmat.
121 lo recom of aitrtitO fo m Le min until 180.
UI Included with countries net specified to 1925.
/ Te fure 33S 3 n coe haded 1901-1910 Licludes 32.897 ye returning t 1 90 t their ho 1s o the Unted Stateu.
T5/ tigorem for Lemt- are mwatble ltaet 1925.
/ Bi n tg wath the l mr 1952, Aar icludes the hilipp Fr 1934 -951. tae Philippias a e toilded to the Pacific Island. Prior
t 1934, the hilippines ar record In separate table as ltwslar -inrel.
7I seglm i s with the yrr 1957, Chtim include eid Stti D mr Jutc
iatc te and 7Bnar satit Oe JSertlice


2 M47 1 32 6 1-3 28 -- i


996 9" 1 1 716 374


i


t


51
459)
475)
531
98
273
403,
1
227
2.651
7,414
12.579
884
139
4382
7,792
967
7.369
a'
II
27
1,039
344
3,331
9,977
1.506
5,568
576
812
5,443
2,315
340




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs