Title
John Dowdy
Centennial High School
Abstract
This is where you write 100-150 words summarizing your entire paper. That means that you will have 1-2 sentences about each of the five sections.
Policy Identification and Explanation
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran-Walter Act is a law that modified immigration into the United States using immigration quotas. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is codified under U.S. law under 8 U.S.C. ch. 12. The law further restricted the quota system used in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924(The Johnson-Reed Act) which was to allow for “two percent of the total number of people of each nationality into the United States as of the 1890 national census”. (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act) The McCarran-Walter Act instead allowed for “one-sixth of one percent of each nationality’s population in the United States” as of the population in 1920. This quota system was not used for Western countries however as it attempted to prioritize European migration. Another change was to allow Asian immigration, which was previously prohibited under the Johnson-Reed Act. The Act did away with counting husbands married to American citizens in the quota system and used a preference policy to prioritize people with special skills or family in the United States. There is also a provision in the law section 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), that allows the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if the President decides that allowing them in would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States”.
History and Background
In the early 50’s and throughout about half of the 20th century the Cold War was raging between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both sides were trying to spread their version of government throughout the world with the United States supporting democracy and the Soviet Union embracing communism. At this time most American’s greatly feared communism and wanted to do anything possible to prevent it from being implemented in the United States. In response Senator Pat McCarren (D) of Nevada and Representative Francis Walter (D) of Pennsylvania sponsored the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Supporters of the bill praised it as a measure that needed to be taken in order to fight communism. Senator McCarren defended the Act saying “If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished”, (History.com Staff, 2009b). On the other side, critics of the act accused it of being xenophobic. One of the most outspoken critics was President Harry Truman (D) who said the legislation was “un-American and inhumane”, (History.com Staff, 2009b). The legislation passed both houses in June 1952 and was vetoed by President Truman. Truman’s veto was overruled by both houses of Congress and took effect December 24, 1952.
Current Situation
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has been codified into U.S. law but has been modified extensively since its passage in 1952. In 1965 the Hart-Celler Act replaced the national origin quota system with a new one based on attracting immigrants from Asia, Africa, and South America, (History.com, 2010). In 1986 President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act which allowed illegal aliens who had been in the United Sates since 1982 receive legal status by paying a fee and following the law. Secondly it put into place more extensive border security on the Mexico-United States border and penalized businesses who hired illegal aliens, (Plumer, 2013). In 1990 President George H.W. Bush signed The Immigration Act of 1990 which modified the Walter-McClaren Act by setting a worldwide standard of immigration. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System was implemented in September of 2002. This registration system was designed to more heavily vet people coming from certain countries and was completely removed by the Obama Administration on December 23, 2016, (Jachimowikz & McKay, 2014). Most recently though the law has been cited in executive order 13769 signed by President Donald Trump. The executive order cites specifically 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) which grants the President the authority to prevent certain classes of aliens from entering the United States should it be detrimental to the interests of the United States to allow them entry into the country.
The executive order puts a temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries in an attempt to fight against radical Islamic terrorism. The only country actually named in the executive order is Syria as it calls for a permanent ban on Syrian refugees in order to prevent Islamic State terrorists from entering the United States. The other six countries in the executive order are Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, (Shapiro, 2017). The executive order does not specifically name these countries but instead refers to a statute that lists terror linked countries saying “I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”, (Executive Order No. 13769, 2017). It is currently unknown what impact the executive order will have as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has put a halt on the immigration ban, (Horowitz, 2017).
Above is a graphic from CNN showing some of the biggest terrorist hotspots on the planet. Included are five of the seven countries included in the travel ban. They are Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. Libya is currently having great difficulty with terrorist groups inside the country. One of the most notable terror attacks inside Libya is the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack where four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed by radical Muslims. At the time of this attack the Islamic State had an estimated 800 soldiers in Libya.
Differing Viewpoints
The two main viewpoints of executive order 13769 are those of the left consisting mostly of democrats and the right consisting mostly of republicans. The left believes the immigration ban is discriminatory and illegal. David Bier of the Cato institute argues that because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned discriminating against immigrants because of national origin the executive order is illegal. Bier says that the power given to the president in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was revised in the 1965 law so that nobody could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence”. Bier then says that it is not legal to bar certain nations immigrants from entry into the United States because visa issuance is illegal and immigrants cannot by law obtain a visa without entering the United States (Bier, 2017). On the issue of the effectiveness of the policy, Jennifer Willams of Vox believes that the immigration ban simply won’t stop terrorism. She points out that no major U.S. terror attacks in the last 15 years have been committed by anyone from any of the countries in the executive order. Williams argues that it logistically doesn’t make any sense for terror groups to send people from those countries to the U.S. when it is much easier to create homegrown radicals through online propaganda. She also says that the executive order targets the wrong countries and specifies that the many of the major terror attacks in the United States were committed by people from or who’s parents are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt(Williams 2017). Most recently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a halt on the immigration ban saying that the Trump Administration provided “no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” (Jarret & Vogue 2017).
The political right for the most part believes that not only the ban is legal but that it is necessary to protect the national security of the United States. On the legal side Andrew McCarthy of National Review points out that the provision in the Hart-Celler Act banning discrimination was designed to put an end to law favoring Western European immigration. McCarthy says that the executive order “is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants,” (McCarthy, 2017) but instead designed to protect the country from terrorist attacks. McCarthy also makes the point that Congress has discovered terror roots in countries that are predominantly Muslim so it is therefore not discriminatory against Muslims, but discriminatory against countries with terror links who happen to be mostly Muslim (McCarthy, 2017). Most on the right are also very opposed to the previously stated Ninth Circuit Court decision to halt the immigration ban. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review argues that the Court’s decision was not only wrong but that they have no power over the executive order. He cites 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) as proof that the president has plenary power over immigration and thus the court is not within it’s rights to require evidence of any “detrimental interests” because the authority was delegated to the president, not to the courts. He brings up a 1996 court case Enceuntro del Canto Popular v. Christopher where a California district judge stated that the President has the power to conduct foreign affairs. Saying “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation, ” (Horowitz, 2017). Horowitz uses this to argue that if the president cannot halt immigration from countries with terror links then he does not possess the power to conduct foreign affairs.
The right also believes that the executive order doesn’t go far enough and that other countries should be added to the immigration ban. Jordan Schatchtel of Conservative Review brings up the fact that Pakistan has multiple terror groups inside the country including the Islamic State, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda among others. He also refers to the San Bernardino terrorist attack and mentions that one of the people involved in it was a Pakistani and that “the U.S. has seen 14 Pakistani nationals charged with terrorist-related activities inside the country, ” (Schatchel, 2017) since 1975. Schatchel also points out that Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest state sponsors of terror and that most foreign terrorists in America came from Saudi Arabia including fifteen of the nineteen September eleventh hijackers, (Schatchel, 2017).
There is not much agreement between the left and the right on this issue as it is very controversial, but there is some overlap as far as countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan go. For example many on the left argue that the executive order should be more focused on those countries because there have been more terrorist attacks carried out by nationals of those countries. Many on the right also believe that more should be done to prevent terrorist attacks from those regions including putting travel bans on those areas as well. While both sides probably would not agree on the solution to combat terror from those regions there is some overlap in regard to putting more focus on those countries to prevent terrorist attacks.
There are however many points of disagreement between the left and the right. The left believes that the executive order is discriminatory towards Muslims because the ban only affects Muslim countries whereas the right believes that it is a matter of national security and not discriminatory in regards to race or religion. Many on the left also believe that the immigration ban simply won’t stop terrorism because of the countries included in it whereas the right believes that it’s too dangerous to allow people in from these countries because of the terrorist influence.
Policy Recommendation
References
History.com Staff. (2010). U.S. Immigration Since 1965. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965
Plumer, B. (2013, January 30). Congress tried to fix immigration back in 1986. Why did it fail? Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/30/in-1986-congress-tried-to-solve-immigration-why-didnt-it-work/?utm_term=.081604c2b6a2
..