Immigration Laws is the topic and the direction are attach.

Issues & Controversies

Last Updated: March 14, 2018

Immigration Policy: Do Stringent

Immigration Policies Benefit the United

States?

Introduction

hello hello

Allen Eyestone/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Immigrants from more than 65 countries are sworn in as U.S. citizens in Florida in

January 2018.

The appeal that the United States holds for many immigrants, combined with its restrictive immigration policy, has

led millions of people to enter the country illegally. Many of these illegal, or undocumented, immigrants end up

living in the United States for many years. Experts estimate that half of the illegal immigrant population has been in

SUPPORTERS ARGUE

The United States must take drastic action to secure

its borders. Illegal immigrants are a drain on the

U.S. economy and pose an urgent security threat.

Building a border wall and limiting

immigration from certain countries will benefit the

United States.

OPPONENTS ARGUE

Immigration is a core aspect of the United States'

national identity. Building a border wall, banning

immigration from certain countries, and favoring

entry from wealthier nations are racist policies that

will ultimately harm the United States. the country for a decade or longer. According to the Pew Research Center, the largest percentage of undocumented

immigrants living in the United States hails from Mexico, followed by El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Honduras,

and China.

Entering the United States illegally is risky. Unauthorized immigrants must either use falsified documents to deceive

immigration officials, come ashore by boat without being detected, or sneak across the nation's land borders with

Mexico or Canada, which the government spends billions of dollars a year to protect. Hundreds of people die each

year attempting to cross the border between the United States and Mexico, most of heatstroke or dehydration in the

treacherous deserts that separate the two countries. Additionally, the U.S. government can deport illegal immigrants

and ban them from re-entering the country for 10 years. Nevertheless, people from other countries continue to take

these risks on a daily basis. Others enter the country legally, but stay long after the expiration of their visas, official

documents that allow them to stay in the country on a temporary basis.

For years, debate has raged in the United States over how to handle the estimated 11 million people living in the

country illegally. While many opponents of illegal immigration argue that these immigrants should be deported—or

face such unfriendly conditions that they choose to leave willingly, or "self-deport"—defenders argue that

undocumented immigrants help fuel the U.S. economy and contribute to U.S. communities in many other valuable

ways.

The debate over immigration to the United States was upended in 2016 by the candidacy and election of President

Donald Trump (R). Trump made opposition to illegal immigration a central issue of his campaign. One of his most

notable pledges was a promise to build a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico. Since

becoming president, Trump has signed a series of executive orders to limit entrance to the United States from

nations he claimed were likely to export terrorists. In September 2017, President Trump announced he would end

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program launched in 2012 by President Barack Obama (D, 2009

–17) to grant temporary legal protection to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States

as children.

President Trump's immigration policies have sparked debate over how to contend with undocumented immigrants

currently in the United States as well as how the country should go about accepting newcomers in the future.

Do stringent immigration policies benefit the United States?

Supporters of taking drastic steps to secure U.S. borders argue that illegal immigrants pose an urgent threat to the

United States. Taking strong measures such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and banning

immigration from countries known to export terrorists, they contend, are necessary to protect the United States. The

government, advocates of a strict immigration policy argue, should emphasize skills and education rather than

diversity when deciding who to allow to enter the United States.

Opponents of stringent immigration policies argue that the United States was built on immigration. Immigrants

benefit the U.S. economy, they contend, and undocumented immigrants pose no major threat to the country.

Building a wall between the United States and Mexico and banning immigration from majority-Muslim nations,

they assert, are ineffective policies based on fear and ignorance. Young, undocumented immigrants who have built

their lives here, opponents of strict immigration policies argue, should be allowed to stay.

Immigration Laws in American History

The first immigration-related legislation in the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which allowed

"free white persons" who had lived in the United States for at least two years to apply for citizenship. In 1795,

Congress raised this period to five years.

In 1798, President John Adams (Federalist, 1797–1801) signed four laws known collectively as the Alien and

Sedition Acts. The United States at the time was teetering on the brink of war with France, and the laws were intended to curb opposition to the U.S. government, particularly from immigrants suspected of spreading pro-

French and radical sentiments. The Alien Enemies Act allowed the president, during a time of war, to deport citizens

of an enemy nation, and the Alien Friends Act allowed the president to deport any alien he deemed "dangerous to

the peace and safety of the United States." The Naturalization Act of 1798 increased the amount of time immigrants

had to stay in the United States before they could apply for citizenship from 5 years to 14 years, while the Sedition

Act restricted criticism of the U.S. government. The unpopularity of the Alien and Sedition Acts contributed to

President Adams's defeat in the 1800 presidential election by Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican, 1801–09),

who staunchly opposed the laws as an incursion on Americans' civil liberties. Most of the provisions expired in 1800

and 1801.

In the mid-19th century, the United States experienced a massive wave of immigration to its shores. Between 1820

and 1880, millions of western Europeans—mostly from Great Britain, Germany, and Ireland—left their homelands

to start new lives in the United States. Although tensions between native-born Americans and immigrants did

exist—and occasionally exploded into violence—the influx was, for the most part, welcomed. The United States

needed a larger population to help settle its western states and territories and to contribute to its growing economy.

Not all immigrants were well received, however, especially those from countries outside of western Europe. In the

1850s, a wave of Chinese immigrants entered the United States, settling mostly in western states and territories and

helping to build the nation's infrastructure, including the Transcontinental Railroad. These immigrants had initially

been welcomed for their willingness to perform low-wage manual labor, but resentment against them grew in the

1870s, once the railroad was completed.

Amid increasing hostility toward Chinese immigrants, which included discriminatory state and local measures and

numerous acts of violence and murder against the Chinese, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. The

first law to restrict immigration based on race or nationality, the Chinese Exclusion Act barred virtually all Chinese

immigrants from entering the United States for 10 years. Renewed in 1892 and made permanent in the early 1900s,

the law also prevented Chinese immigrants already living in the country from becoming citizens. (The law would

remain in effect until 1943, when many of its provisions were repealed to solidify the alliance between the United

States and China during World War II.)

Immigration from Europe boomed again in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with millions coming from Italy,

Poland, Russia, and other countries. In 1907, the peak year, more than 1.2 million newcomers arrived in the United

States.

Immigration remained controversial, however, particularly after the outbreak of World War I (1914–18), when

growing anxiety over national security prompted lawmakers to tighten restrictions on entry to the United States.

The Immigration Act of 1917, passed despite a veto by President Woodrow Wilson (D, 1913–21), gave officials

greater power to deport resident aliens; closed the U.S. border to almost anyone from Asia; required immigrants to

pay a steep tax and prove their literacy before entering the country; and formally barred a wide range of

"undesirables"—a group that included poor people, "imbeciles, epileptics, [and] alcoholics"—from entering the

United States.

In 1921, President Warren G. Harding (R, 1921–23) signed the Quota Act, which allowed only 3 percent of the

immigrant population of each country living in the United States as of the 1910 census to enter the country each

year. The quotas largely favored western European countries, which represented the largest immigrant populations

in 1910, and were intended to discourage immigrants from southern and eastern European countries, such as Italy

and Poland, from entering the United States.

Quotas were tightened in 1924 by the National Origins Act, signed by President Calvin Coolidge (R, 1923–29). The

law reduced the annual immigration quotas to 2 percent and dated the benchmark population amount backward

from 1910 to 1890, when there were even fewer immigrants from southern and eastern Europe living in the United

States. These laws caused immigration to the United States to fall sharply for several decades. The Great Depression—a

severe economic downturn that lasted throughout the 1930s—and the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) also

contributed to the decline.

In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The law

partially lifted the ban on Asians immigrating to the United States and allowed a limited number of Asian

immigrants to become American citizens. The act also further enhanced the federal government's ability to enforce

immigration quotas that had been established earlier in the 20th century. For that reason, President Harry Truman

(D, 1945–53), who argued that the quota system was discriminatory, vetoed the bill. Congress, however, overrode

the veto, and the McCarran-Walter Act became law.

By the 1960s, many Americans had come to see the quota system as antithetical to the nation's values. "Our streets

may not be paved with gold," Senator Edward Kennedy (D, Massachusetts) remarked while debating immigration

reform in Congress in 1965, "but they are paved with the promise that men and women who live here—even

strangers and new newcomers—can rise as fast, as far as their skills will allow, no matter what their color is, no

matter what the place of their birth."

Shortly afterward, President Lyndon Johnson (D, 1963–69) stood at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and signed the

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 into law. The law gave immigrants from all countries a mostly equal

chance of becoming American citizens. It strongly favored immigrants who were skilled workers, those who sought

political asylum, and those who wished to reunite with family members already living in the United States. The law

would profoundly change the nation's racial and demographic makeup, leading to surges in the country's African,

Asian, South American, and Eastern European populations, all of which had previously been allowed only very

limited entry to the United States.

Despite the law's passage, the number of immigrants coming to the United States illegally rose in the late 20th

century, particularly from Mexico, which borders Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. In an effort to curb

illegal immigration, President Ronald Reagan (R, 1981–89) signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in

1986, which allocated funding to strengthen the U.S.-Mexican border and made it a crime for employers to

knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants.

The 1986 law also made any undocumented immigrant who had been living continuously in the United States since

1982 eligible to gain legal status. President Reagan had voiced support for such a measure during his 1984 reelection

campaign. "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here," he said during one

of the presidential debates, "even though some time back they may have entered illegally." As a result of the law, an

estimated 3 million immigrants eventually became citizens.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act, however, did little to decrease the rate of illegal immigration to the

United States. Some observers argue that the law was in fact responsible for a surge in unauthorized immigration,

on the basis that the notion of future amnesty encouraged more immigrants to enter the country illegally. Many

others, however, claim that it is impossible to attribute the post-1986 wave of illegal immigrants solely to that year's

immigration law. Immigration patterns are complicated, they point out, and it is difficult to ascribe broad general

trends to just one cause.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to reverse the rising tide of unauthorized immigration, Congress passed the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. The law provided more funding for border security

and gave immigration officials greater power to deport illegal immigrants. The law also prohibited undocumented

immigrants from receiving federal benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, or welfare. Attempts to Pass Immigration Reform Fail

In 2004, after winning reelection, President George W. Bush (R, 2001–09) declared that one of the top priorities for

his second term would be the promotion of an immigration reform law that dealt constructively and humanely with

the issue of illegal immigration. Although Bush repeatedly stated that he opposed amnesty, he supported an

approach that would have put many undocumented immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship.

Many Republicans broke with President Bush, supporting a more hardline stance toward illegal immigration. In

December 2005, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed an immigration reform bill that focused

almost entirely on enhancing border security and increasing penalties on undocumented immigrants. The bill

proved extremely unpopular with immigrants in the United States—both legal and illegal—and sparked massive

protests throughout the first half of 2006. On May 1, for example, demonstrators organized a so-called day without

immigrants, in which immigrants boycotted their jobs and other aspects of American society in an effort to show

how much the country relied on their labor.

In the months that followed, a bipartisan group of senators worked to craft a more moderate bill along the lines of

President Bush's proposals. The resulting bill provided a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million

undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. It also allowed more people to enter the country

legitimately, by establishing a guest-worker program, "a legal and orderly [way] for foreign workers to enter our

country to work on a temporary basis," as President Bush described it in his 2007 State of the Union address.

The Senate passed the bill but was unable to reconcile it with the House's vastly different version. A similar Senate

bill in 2007 that included a greater emphasis on immigration enforcement was defeated, and immigration reform

effectively collapsed.

President Barack Obama (D, 2009–17) supported a plan similar to the one advocated by Bush, but was also never

able to get such a proposal passed by Congress. Obama also promoted standalone measures to help undocumented

immigrants who had not otherwise been accused of illegal activity. The president supported, for example, the

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would have allowed immigrants whose

parents brought them to the United States illegally as children to earn citizenship if they attended college or served in the military. The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act in 2010, but Republicans in the Senate blocked

it.

In June 2012, while running for reelection, President Obama issued an executive order to establish a program called

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which bore similarities to the DREAM Act. The program permitted

undocumented immigrants the opportunity to apply for temporary legal status and work permits if they were under

the age of 31 at the time the order was issued, had entered the United States before the age of 16, had lived in the

United States since at least 2007, had obtained a high school diploma or certificate or served in the U.S. Armed

Forces, and had no significant criminal record. Some referred to DACA recipients as "dreamers," in reference to the

DREAM Act.

Under DACA, hundreds of thousands of "dreamers" registered for protected status. Though participants in the

program were allowed to work, pay taxes, and enroll in college, DACA recipients were not offered a pathway to

citizenship or permanent residency and were not eligible for federal welfare programs such as Social Security or

federal financial aid for school. The vast majority of beneficiaries of the program were from Latin America—mostly

from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—and had to apply every two years to renew protections.

Many Republicans accused President Obama of overstepping the limits of executive power by issuing the order.

Although supporters of immigrants' rights applauded the president's order, they sharply criticized other actions

taken by the Obama administration. Indeed, President Obama increased various enforcement measures against

illegal immigration, including escalating deportations. In 2012, the United States expelled more than 400,000

undocumented immigrants, the highest number in history, and by the end of Obama's term his administration had

deported more than 2.5 million people.

President Obama again promoted immigration reform at the beginning of his second term. "The time has come for

common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform," he told an audience in Las Vegas, Nevada, in January 2013.

"Real reform means strong border security," the president said during his State of the Union address the following

month. "Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship." [See President Obama

Outlines Immigration Plan in Las Vegas Speech (primary source)]

Trump Administration Takes Hard Line on Immigration

Immigration policy played a central role in the 2016 presidential election after businessman Donald Trump (R)

made the issue a cornerstone of his campaign. When announcing his run for the presidency in June 2015, Trump

framed illegal immigration from Mexico as one of the main threats to the United States. "The U.S. has become a

dumping ground for everybody else's problems," he said. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their

best…. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump assailed Mexico throughout the campaign, promising that, if elected, he would build a wall along the U.S.-

Mexican border and force Mexico to pay for it. He also asserted that, because of various acts of violence perpetrated

by Muslims around the world, he would enact a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States.

Just days after his inauguration on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to begin

making good on some of his promises. On January 25, he ordered "the immediate construction of a physical wall on

the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and

human trafficking, and acts of terrorism." For the wall to be built, however, Congress would have to agree to

allocate the billions of dollars required to construct it. The order also directed federal agencies to detain illegal

immigrants and "remove promptly those individuals whose legal claims to remain in the United States have been

lawfully rejected." [See President Trump Orders Creation of Border Wall with Mexico (primary source)]

Two days later, President Trump signed another executive order, banning travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

"Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that

terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States," the order stated. "The United States must be

vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm

Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism." Immigration from the seven countries, the order continued,

"would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." [See President Trump Orders

Partial Immigration Ban (primary source)]

Implemented immediately, the executive order sparked confusion at airports across the nation as customs agents

detained and in some cases deported people traveling to the United States. Thousands of demonstrators showed up

at U.S. airports to protest the restrictions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the state of Washington, and

other parties filed lawsuits challenging the order, which critics argued discriminated against Muslims. Several

federal courts struck down the ban, and in early March, President Trump issued a new version of the order,

exempting current visa and green-card holders from the ban, along with travelers from Iraq. Federal judges again

struck down the ban, and in September, the Trump administration issued a third ban, barring people from Chad,

Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen and limiting travel from Venezuela. A federal judge

temporarily blocked that order as well, but in December 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear an

appeal of the case, allowed the ban to be enacted as it considered the case. [See

Trump v. Hawaii , U.S. Supreme

Court Decision (primary source)]

In September 2017, meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration had

decided to end DACA. Congress would have six months, Sessions warned, to find a permanent solution to the status

of immigrants protected by DACA before the program officially expired. Eligible DACA recipients whose protections

were set to expire before the March 2018 deadline could apply for a final two-year renewal, but those whose

protections were set to expire after the deadline would not be able to reapply unless Congress renewed the program.

At the time of Sessions's announcement, an estimated 690,000 people were receiving protections under the

program. Some expressed concern that, since DACA recipients had identified themselves to the government when

they registered in the program, immigration authorities could now use that information to find and deport them.

President Trump, however, asserted that his administration would not make deporting those who had been

protected under DACA a priority. "We are focused on criminals, security threats, recent border-crossers, visa

overstays, and repeat violators," he said in a statement in September 2017. Trump also expressed sympathy for

DACA recipients and pledged to work with Congress to resolve the issue with "heart and compassion."

Mayors of several major U.S. cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, declared that

they would not participate in President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigrants. In July 2017, Attorney General

Sessions had announced that such jurisdictions, sometimes described as "sanctuary cities," would be subject to

having federal grants to subsidize their law enforcement agencies revoked. "So-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of

us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes,"

Sessions said in a press release. "These policies also encourage illegal immigration and even human trafficking by

perpetuating the lie that in certain cities, illegal aliens can live outside the law." Mayors of cities targeted by the

policy vowed to fight it in court. "We want you to come to Chicago if you believe in the American dream," Chicago

mayor Rahm Emanuel said in an interview with CNN in August. "By forcing us, or the police department, to

choose between the values of the city and the philosophy of the police department…I think it's a false choice and it

undermines our actual safety agenda."

In September 2017, President Trump met with Democratic congressional leaders Senator Chuck Schumer (D, New

York) and Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, California). During the meeting, Trump reportedly expressed support for

the DREAM Act of 2017, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina) and Richard

Durbin (D, Illinois) to provide permanent legal status for immigrants who met qualifications similar to those

required by DACA in exchange for measures to bolster border security. The following month, however, the White House sent legislators a list of immigration priorities that President

Trump wanted addressed by any legislation that resolved the DACA issue. The list called for Congress to allocate

funding to complete a border wall; lift protections that allowed unaccompanied minors to stay within the United

States while their asylum applications were being processed; narrow the categories of people who qualified for

asylum; crack down on sanctuary cities by withholding federal grants; require all employers to use an E-Verify

computer system to ensure that employees are legally in the United States; expand the list of "inadmissible aliens" to

include members of gangs and those convicted of felonies, along with the spouses and children of drug and human

traffickers; hire more immigration officers; eliminate a Diversity Visa Lottery program that granted visas to

residents of countries that do not provide many immigrants to the United States; and cut the number of green cards

issued to relatives of legal residents in favor of a system that rewards high-skilled workers. [See President Trump

Asks Congress to Toughen Border Security, Narrow Immigration Eligibility (primary source)]

Democrats criticized the list, noting that it contained nothing about establishing a pathway to help undocumented

immigrants already in the United States obtain legal status. "The administration can't be serious about compromise

or helping the Dreamers," Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi asserted in a statement, "if they begin with a

list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant community and to the vast majority of Americans."

A pair of terrorist attacks in New York City in the autumn of 2017, meanwhile, prompted President Trump to

intensify his arguments for a more stringent immigration policy. In October, Sayfullo Saipo, a 29-year-old who had

immigrated to the United States from Uzbekistan in 2010, drove a truck into a crowded bike path in lower

Manhattan, killing eight and injuring eleven. In December, a man who had immigrated to the United States from

Bangladesh on a family immigrant visa detonated a bomb in a New York City subway station, injuring himself and

several others. Trump pointed to the attacks as evidence that immigration laws should award visas solely on the

basis of merit rather than also favoring immigrants who have a relative in the United States petitioning on their

behalf. "America must fix its lax immigration system, which allows far too many dangerous, inadequately vetted

people to access our country," the president said in a statement after the subway bombing. "Today's terror suspect

entered our country through extended-family chain migration, which is incompatible with national security."

The Trump administration has also altered a humanitarian program, known as Temporary Protected Status, which

allows certain individuals from countries affected by natural disasters and armed conflicts to live temporarily in the

United States. In November 2017, the Trump administration announced that approximately 59,000 Haitians, who

had entered the United States after an earthquake devastated their country in 2010, would have to leave the United

States. In January 2018, the government announced that it would end Temporary Protected Status for El

Salvadorans who had been living legally in the United States after a 2001 earthquake in their country. The decision

affected approximately 200,000 people from El Salvador living in the United States.

President Trump, meanwhile, continued to meet with legislators to discuss immigration reform and extending

protections for DACA recipients. On January 11, Senators Durbin and Graham met privately with the president to

present the outline of a deal they had reached on immigration. Republican Senators Tom Cotton (Arkansas) and

David Perdue (Georgia), who had sponsored more hardline legislation that would cut immigration to the United

States in half, were also present.

After the meeting, the Washington Post reported that, according to anonymous sources briefed on the discussions,

President Trump had criticized the Durbin-Graham deal for allowing immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and

African countries to settle in the United States. Allegedly referring to these nations as "shithole countries," Trump

reportedly asserted that the United States should instead accept more immigrants from countries like Norway, a

wealthy, predominantly white nation. Senator Durbin affirmed at a press conference that President Trump had used

"hate-filled, vile, and racist" language during the meeting. Senator Graham refused to comment, but Senator Tim

Scott (R, South Carolina) said that Graham had called the report "basically accurate." Trump admitted on Twitter

to having used "tough" language during the meeting, but denied using the vulgar term he had been accused of.

Defending the president, Cotton and Perdue said the content of the meeting had been misrepresented. President Trump did, however, assert that the United States should pursue an immigration policy that favors

applicants from more prosperous nations. Under the proposal put forth by Durbin and Graham, Trump wrote on

Twitter, the United States "would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime…countries which are

doing badly. I want a merit based system of immigration and people who will help take our country to the next

level."

Democrats asserted that President Trump's inflammatory comments indicated that he favored allowing immigrants

from majority-white countries over those with black and Hispanic populations, and decried his agenda as racist.

They also objected to Trump's alleged sweeping characterization of Africa as an undesirable region. All 55 African

countries released a joint statement demanding an apology, claiming that Trump's remarks "dishonour the

celebrated American creed and respect for diversity and human dignity."

The controversy over President Trump's comments occurred as a deadline approached for a bill to provide funding

for the federal government. Failure to pass a spending bill would have forced the government to shut down, and

Democrats hoped to leverage the threat of a shutdown to pressure Republicans into negotiating a deal on DACA.

Legislators failed to reach a compromise, and on Friday, January 20, 2018, the federal government shut down.

Congress negotiated over the weekend, and by Monday, enough Democrats agreed to vote for a short-term spending

bill after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Kentucky) pledged to hold a vote on DACA within the

following few weeks.

In February 2018, a federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, blocked the Trump administration from ending DACA in

March. The government, the court ruled, had not "offered legally adequate reasons" for ending the program. The

Trump administration announced that it would appeal the decision.

Supporters Argue: Government Should Implement Stringent Immigration Policies

Supporters of stringent immigration policies argue that undocumented immigrants present a significant burden to

the United States. "Our porous borders allow national security threats, gangs, human traffickers, alien smugglers

and drug cartels access to the United States," a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),

an anti-immigration think tank, stated in November 2016. "Sudden, massive population increases place

unnecessary strain on the environment, aging power grids and decaying public transportation infrastructure. And

rapid infusions of individuals with limited English proficiency stress already burdened schools and social services

agencies." The government, proponents insist, must enforce its immigration laws more aggressively. "[T]here is nothing

compassionate about the failure to enforce immigration laws," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during a speech

in September 2017. "Enforcing the law saves lives, protects communities and taxpayers, and prevents human

suffering. Failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism."

Such failures of enforcement, advocates maintain, amount to an abdication of one of the government's core

responsibilities. "As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who comes to the U.S," Hans von Spakovsky and

David Inserra of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote in the

Hill in September 2017.

"Enforcing our immigration laws encourages people to come to the U.S. legally and discourages illegal

immigration."

The border wall promised by President Trump, supporters argue, must be built. "We are talking about a historic,

multi-layered defense system so that drug cartels and terrorists cannot simply slip through the cracks,"

Representative Michael McCaul (R, Texas) wrote for Fox News in December 2016. "This means more border patrol

agents, new authorities, aerial surveillance, sensors, and other technology to make sure we seal our territory from

illegals for good."

Proponents stress that President Trump's ban on immigration from majority-Muslim countries is based not on

religion but rather on keeping Americans safe. "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely

reporting," Trump said in January 2017. "This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country

safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.

We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure

policies."

Advocates of restricting immigration also applaud the Trump administration's decision to curtail the Temporary

Protected Status program that has allowed many Haitians and El Salvadorans to stay in the United States. "The

notion that this would be reflexively renewed again and again is a corruption of the entire concept," Dan Stein of

FAIR said in November 2017. "It's supposed to be reviewed and it's supposed to be temporary."

President Trump, supporters argue, is right to favor the admission of immigrants from wealthier countries as

opposed to those from poorer ones. "[T]here

are nations that

are hellholes in this world," the editorial board of the

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote in January 2018. "And there are failed states. It is not racist to say that this country

cannot take only the worst people from the worst places and that we want some of the best people from the best

places…. That's not racism, it is reason."

Indeed, advocates of a stricter policy contend, it benefits both the United States and immigrants themselves to

accept more people from wealthier nations. "The fact is that immigrants from rich countries tend to do better here

than immigrants from poor countries," conservative commentator Rich Lowry wrote in the New York Post in

January 2018, "and education level is a key factor…. We're blessed to live in a country that many millions around

the world want to move to. This affords us the luxury to be more selective in our immigration policy and, like

Canada or Australia, establish a system emphasizing skill suited to a 21st-century economy."

Immigrants should be allowed into the United States based on the contributions they would likely make to the

country, supporters argue, and not on whether they are needy or suffering. "President Trump ran for office arguing

for a merit-based system that lets the in the best and the brightest but turns away criminals," Attorney General

Sessions wrote in the Washington Times in January 2018, "even if they have a relative here. It's a commonsense

idea."

Opponents Argue: Government Should Not Implement Stringent Immigration

Policies

Opponents of implementing stringent steps to prevent illegal immigration argue that the United States was built on the dreams of people seeking to make a better life for themselves in the country, and that clamping down on entry—

such as by building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border—is antithetical to American values. "The symbolism of

'the wall' is contrary to America's best traditions," a Wall Street Journal editorial argued in January 2017, "A

country that prizes liberty, and that historically has welcomed and assimilated immigrants, is sending a powerful

signal against newcomers who have always made America greater."

President Trump's immigration ban from predominantly Muslim countries, critics contend, is also fundamentally

un-American. "I hope the new administration appreciates how much of our greatness throughout our history and

in the future will be created by people from foreign lands," Robert Brown, president of Boston University, wrote in

the Boston Globe in January 2017. "I hope those in Washington will rethink their position on visas and immigrants

and move to uphold one of our core values that has led America and our research universities to being the greatest

places in the world to study, live, and work."

Immigrants help fuel innovation and enterprise, opponents argue, and have driven many of the country's

technological breakthroughs. "One of Google's founders is an immigrant from Russia, and its current chief

executive is an immigrant from India. Microsoft's chief executive is also from India. EBay and Yahoo were started

by immigrants…. Apple was started by a child of immigrants," journalist Farhad Manjoo wrote in the New York

Times in February 2017. "Under Mr. Trump, the immigrant-friendly dynamic could change—and it could bring

about the ruin of American tech."

Proponents of stronger border security, critics note, often fail to acknowledge that the number of illegal crossings

has been declining for years. "Trump's wall is supposed to stop an invasion coming from the south," Jorge Ramos,

news anchor for the Spanish-language television network Univision, told Time in January 2017. "But I have news

for you. There's no invasion. The undocumented population has remained stable at about 11 million for the last half

a decade…. As a matter of fact, more Mexicans are leaving the United States than arriving."

Opponents of President Trump's announcement in September 2017 that he would end DACA, the program President

Obama established in 2012 to protect "Dreamers," the children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United

States years ago, argue that it will hurt hundreds of thousands of upstanding, law-abiding Americans, and do

nothing to advance the country's immigration goals. "We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy,

and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that

everybody plays by the rules," Obama wrote on September 5, after Trump's announcement. However, he added,

that's not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who

grew up in America—kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots

who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in

every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes

even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours…. To target these young people is wrong—

because they have done nothing wrong.

The assertion by President Trump that the United States should accept more immigrants from western Europe and

fewer from African nations, critics contend, is nothing short of racism and reveals the true bigotry at the heart of his

immigration policy. "President Trump laid bare his world vision," an editorial in the

Los Angeles Times

stated in

January 2018. "There are wealthy white countries such as Norway, which are welcome to send immigrants to the

United States. Then there are…Haiti and all the nations of Africa—whose people (overwhelmingly black and brown)

the president doesn't think belong here."

Indeed, opponents insist, conflating the quality of what an individual has to offer with his or her country of origin is

inherently prejudiced. While much of the attention over President Trump's controversial comments on immigration

in January 2018 focused on his vulgar language, critics charge that the real problem with his remarks runs deeper.

"The issue here is not the president's use of profanity," journalist Alex Shepard wrote that month in the New

Republic . "His comments contradict the White House's insistence that what it is advocating is a merit-based

immigration system. After all, Norway is a nationality, not a job or a skill. The president's comments reveal that the immigration policies he's advocating are, at root, racist."

Similarly, critics argue, it is wrong to insinuate that simply because people were born and raised in poor countries

that they are not productive individuals who can benefit their communities in the United States. "[W]hat should

sadden every American is to have someone living in the White House with so little respect for the courage of women

and men who have been coming here from 'shithole' countries for centuries, and who have built the United States

into the great nation it is today," the editorial board of the Washington Post stated in January 2018. "[T]he Irish

who escaped the potato famine, the Italians who left hardscrabble farms in Sicily, the Vietnamese who crammed

onto rickety fishing boats, the Afghans and Eritreans and Nicaraguans who ran from bloody civil wars—each and

every one of them could have been turned back to their 'shithole' native lands had U.S. leaders then been as obtuse

as Mr. Trump is today."

Future of Immigration Policy Uncertain

The future of U.S. immigration policy and President Trump's initiatives remains unclear. It appears as if the ban on

immigration from six majority-Muslim countries will be the subject of an ongoing legal battle. The effort to build

the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, meanwhile, has faced some resistance in Congress, even from Republicans.

It remains to be seen how U.S. immigration policy will continue to unfold in the coming years.

Bibliography

Brown, Robert. "Trump's Travel Ban Diminishes Our Nation." Boston Globe , January 30, 2017,

www.bostonglobe.com.

Cave, Damien. "Long Border, Endless Struggle." New York Times , March 2, 2013, www.nytimes.com.

"The Current State of the Border Fence." Federation for Immigration Reform, January 2017, www.fairus.org.

Davidson, Adam. "Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?" New York Times , February 12, 2013,

www.nytimes.com.

"Donald Trump's Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous." New York Times , January 28, 2017,

www.nytimes.com.

Johnson, Gary. "Build a Better Immigration System, Not a Wall." CNN, August 29, 2016, www.cnn.com.

Kopan, Tal. "Trump Ends DACA but Gives Congress Window to Save It." CNN, September 5, 2017, www.cnn.com.

Lowry, Rich. "Trump's Right About the Need to Pick Immigrants for Skills." New York Post , January 16, 2018,

www.nypost.com.

Ludden, Jennifer. "1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America." National Public Radio, May 9, 2006,

www.npr.org.

McCaskill, Nolan. "Trump Ends DACA—and Pressures Congress to Pass Immigration Reform."

Politico

, September

5, 2017, www.politico.com.

McCaul, Michael. "Yes, We Will Build a Wall, Put Mexico on a 'Payment Plan' and Enforce the Law." Fox News,

December 2016, www.foxnews.com.

Meckler, Laura. "White House Sends Congress Plans for Immigration Enforcement." Wall Street Journal , October

8, 2017, www.wsj.com.

Nakamura, David. "Trump Administration Announces End of Immigration for 'Dreamers.'" Washington Post , September 5, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com.

"A Pointless Amnesty." National Review , January 30, 2013, www.nationalreview.com.

Ramos, Jorge. "Donald Trump's Wall Is Totally Useless." Time , January 28, 2017, www.time.com.

"A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants." National Public Radio, July 4, 2010, www.npr.org.

"Reason as Racism. An Immigration Debate Gets Derailed." Pittsburg Post-Gazette, January 15, 2018, www.post-

gazette.com.

Serwer, Adam. "Hardliners Killed Bush's Immigration Reform. Can They Stop Obama's?" Mother Jones , January

31, 2013, www.motherjones.com.

Sessions, Jeff. "Trump's Merit-Based Immigration System." Washington Times , January 21, 2018,

www.washingtontimes.com.

Spakovsky, Hans von, and David Inserra. "Thank Trump if He Finally Ends the Unconstitutional DACA Program."

Hill , September 1, 2017, thehill.com.

"Trump Is a Liar, But His 'Shithole' Remark Shows He's Often Scariest When He Says What He Truly Believes."

Los

Angeles Times , January 11, 2018, www.latimes.com.

"Trump Seeks Border Wall, Crackdown on Unaccompanied Minors for 'Dreamer' Deal." Reuters, October 9, 2017,

www.reuters.com.

Additional Sources

Additional information about immigration policy can be found in the following sources:

Bush, Jeb, and Clint Bolick. Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution . New York: Threshold Editions,

2013.

Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of

Globalization . Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2010.

Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of immigration policy or

can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10004

Telephone: (212) 549-2500

Internet: www.aclu.org

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

25 Massachusetts Ave.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Telephone: (877) 627-3247

Internet: fairus.org U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th St. S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20536

Telephone: (202) 732-4242

Internet: www.ice.gov

For further information about the ongoing debate over immigration policy, search for the following words and

terms in electronic databases and other publications:

Border wall

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Immigration ban

Path to citizenship

Undocumented immigrants

Citation Information

"Immigration Policy: Do Stringent Immigration Policies Benefit the United States?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 14 Mar.

2018, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=6315. Accessed 2 Apr. 2018.