Immigration reduction refers to a government and social policy in the United States that advocates a reduction in the amount ofimmigration allowed into the country. Steps advocated for reducing the numbers of immigrants include advocating stronger action to preventillegal entry andillegal migration, and reductions in non-immigrant temporarywork visas (such asH-1B,L-1 andJ-1). Some advocate tightening the requirements for legal immigration requirements to reduce numbers or move the proportions of legal immigrants away from those onfamily reunification programs to skills-based criteria.
Many immigration reformists only oppose illegal migration and support continued legal immigration methods. Some immigration reductionists want to reduce current legal immigration percentages until fewer adverse effects are created by illegal migration.[1]
There have been several discernible groups at various times within the United States, which pushed for immigration restrictions, with separate concerns, origins, and aims; thus there are several antecedents for the modern immigration reduction movement. These include thenativist United States American Party, often called theKnow Nothing movement of the mid-19th century, which objected to increasedCatholic immigration of predominantly Irish and German origin; theWorkingman's Party which objected to immigration laborers from China to California during the late-19th century, a sentiment that ultimately led to theChinese Exclusion Act of 1882; theImmigration Restriction League, which objected to greatly increased immigration from southern and eastern Europe during the late-19th and early 20th centuries, and the joint congressionalDillingham Commission, which studied this latter complaint and proposed numerical restrictions. Eventually, followingWorld War I, these studies led to theEmergency Quota Act of 1921 and theImmigration Act of 1924.
Organized labor generally favored restrictions, especially from Asia. TheNational Labor Union (1866–1874) campaigned for immigration restrictions as well as theeight-hour workday, as did theAmerican Federation of Labor under the leadership ofSamuel Gompers. TheAFL–CIO did not reverse its opposition to immigration until 1999. The earlyUnited States Socialist Party was split over the issue, with some Socialist leaders includingJack London and CongressmanVictor Berger supporting immigration restrictions; the party as a whole never had consensus and officially opposed only the importation of strikebreakers.
Concern overoverpopulation was stimulated byPaul R. Ehrlich, who both foundedZero Population Growth and publishedThe Population Bomb in 1968. The popular book foretold alarming disasters that would inevitably occur in the next decades. Though some of his predictions did not come to pass, many believe his main points are valid, and they succeeded in inspiring a movement. Environmentalists includingDavid R. Brower andDavid Foreman took the threat seriously.[2] The Zero Population Growth organization did not involve itself, for the most part, in U.S. immigration policy, and a subset of theoverpopulation movement grew which believed that immigration needed to be reduced, arguing that immigration was driving most U.S. population growth. These activists founded organizations separate from ZPG which would specifically address immigration issues. Among the important early organizations wasNegative Population Growth, founded in 1972 by Donald Mann.[3]
The leading inspiration for the modern movement is theFederation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Founded in 1979, it is the largest and best funded organization in the movement. Three years later,John Tanton formed US, Inc. as an incubator and funding source to help form other organizations. According to public tax records, US, Inc, FAIR, and other Tanton organizations have received large donations from thePioneer Fund and from the foundations controlled byRichard Mellon Scaife. Tanton created US English (an English-only advocacy group), theCenter for Immigration Studies (CIS),ProEnglish (another English-only advocacy group), andThe Social Contract Press. US, Inc and FAIR have provided funding and logistical support to other organizations, includingAmerican Immigration Control Foundation (AICF),California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR),Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and the recentProtect Arizona Now (PAN) initiative, Proposition 200.
The movement seemed to be triumphant in 1994 when California voters passedProposition 187, an initiative that limited benefits to illegal aliens that had been authored and promoted by CCIR. However, one federal judge enjoined implementation of parts of the law as unconstitutional, and Democratic governorGray Davis refused to pursue an appeal of the lower court decision, abandoning Proposition 187. Residual resentment over the racially divisive campaigns on both sides of the issue made immigration a topic that politicians largely avoided dealing with. A notable exception has beenTom Tancredo, who was elected to Congress fromLittleton, Colorado in 1994. Together withPatrick Buchanan and the Tanton network, Tancredo has emerged as the most conspicuous voice advocating immigration reduction in Congress.
The immigration reduction movement was partly revived by The Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population coalition. In 1997 members from a range of immigration reduction and environmental organizations met to rededicate themselves to the effort of population stabilization. Organized by Population-Environment Balance, it included such diverse groups as:[4]
Another effort was the coalition formed under the name U.S. Sustainable Population Policy Project (USS3P) in 1996 byDouglas La Follette andDavid Pimentel.[5] The USS3P membership contained many immigration reductionists of the time. In 1999 it sought cosponsors for a major national conference on immigration. A number of major individuals and minor organizations joined as co-sponsors, but no large national groups joined and it folded in 2000 without holding the intended conference.
The Internet offered new opportunities for communication by immigration reductionists, as it has with countless other movements.Peter Brimelow founded hisVDARE writers collective in 1999. The year 1999 also saw the founding by Craig Nelson ofProjectUSA in New York City, which used billboards to advertiseCensus Bureau and other statistics about immigration in a campaign dubbed "Billboard Democracy," and publishes an ezine in which the term "Minuteman" was first used (2002) in connection with civilian border patrols. TheNumbersUSA group founded byRoy Beck set up an automated system for website visitors to send advocacy faxes to their legislators on immigration topics. Numerous websites, email lists, weblogs, and other resources furthered the effort.
The electoral success ofArizona's Proposition 200, PAN, indicates the support for immigration reductionism among voters. The PAN initiative qualified for the ballot following the expenditure by FAIR of hundreds of thousands of dollars for signature gathering, plus comparable sums for campaigning with some additional amounts raised locally. The initiative was adopted by the public by a significant margin and is likely to inspire similar efforts in other states. The success of Proposition 200 in Arizona was followed in April 2005 by theMinuteman Project, in which volunteers came to Arizona to help patrol the border, although this project did not have the support of theUnited States Border Patrol and generated some controversy. The organizers of the Minuteman Project have announced plans for similar projects in other states includingTexas,California, andMichigan.
In 2016 billionaire New York City businessman and television personalityDonald Trump ran a successful presidential campaign promising to stop illegal immigration;deport all undocumented immigrants living in the country illegally; limit legal immigration; stopMuslims from entering the U.S.; ban travel to the US from what he called "terror prone" countries such asIran,Libya,Somalia andSyria; triple the number ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement agents; and build a wall along the nation's 3,145 kilometer (1,954 mi) border withMexico to stop illegal aliens from crossing into the U.S. Trump also vowed to cut off all federal funding tosanctuary cities, endbirthright citizenship, and immediately terminatePresident Obama's two executive amnesties includingDeferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents andDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which he said were illegal.[6] Although Trump'sDemocratic rivalHillary Clinton, and even some of his fellowRepublicans such asMitt Romney called Trump's anti-immigrant platformracist,xenophobic, andIslamophobic, his proposals found broad support in theheartland and thesouth. As president he enacted a number of policies aimed at reducing immigration, includingsigning executive orders banning the admission to the United States for residents of multiple, Muslim-majority nations;separating families of immigrants; reversing theDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; greatly limiting the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the country; and strengthening the southern border.[7]
Immigration reductionists differ on the ideal level of immigration they would like to see into the United States. Some believe the numbers should be set each year at whatever level would, in conjunction with the currentfertility rate and emigration from the U.S., maintain zero population growth in the country. The most prominent immigration reductionist in government today is U.S. CongressmanTom Tancredo, R-CO. Tancredo has authored a bill that calls for limiting annual immigration to between 30,000 and 300,000.[8] The organization,Population-Environment Balance (PEB), issued an "Immigration Moratorium Action Plan"[9] calling for a "non-piercable" cap of 100,000 persons annually, which would be a 95% cut from current levels.
There are also some who support a moratorium on immigration. TheDiversity Alliance for a Sustainable America claims that 43% of Californians polled said that a 3-year moratorium on immigration would be beneficial to the state (compared to 40% who said it would be futile).[10] The America First Party calls for a ten-year moratorium, with only spouses and children of citizens allowed in.[11] Other advocates for moratoriums include theReform Party[12] and 2004Constitution Party presidential candidateMichael Peroutka.[13]
The Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (now defunct), two groups that both operate out of the same Washington, D.C. address, issue frequent statements that advocating for the numbers recommended by the Jordan Commission, 700,000 annually, is "counter-productive". In a National Alert, the CCN warned that organizations supporting numbers higher than 300,000 undercut the movement, and they specifically criticize the Federation for American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA.[14]
Some groups not connected to the immigration reduction movement nonetheless support a reduction to legal immigration levels of around 500,000 to 600,000. In their 1997 book,Misplaced Blame, Alan Durning and Christopher Crowther of Northwest Environment Watch write that illegal immigration gets too much attention, and identify five main sources of population growth, including lack of access tofamily planning as well as a misguided legal immigration policy, and subsidies to domestic migration. They readily admit that immigration should be reduced by an unspecified amount, but they also show concern for the rights of existing residents.[15]
TheUnited States-Mexico barrier has been partially constructed to reduce the flow of unauthorized migrants into the United States. Donald Trump has proposed an expansion of the wall.[16]
.svg)
Pro-enforcement U.S. think tanks such as theCenter for Immigration Studies have supported an "attrition through enforcement" doctrine.[17] The aim here is to, as that organization states, "Shrink the illegal population through consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law. By deterring the settlement of new illegals, by increasing deportations to the extent possible, and, most importantly, by increasing the number of illegals already here who give up and deport themselves, the United States can bring about an annual decrease in the illegal-alien population, rather than allowing it to continually increase."[18] This approach concedes that mass deportations of illegal aliens is logistically, economically, and politically untenable.[18]
Arizona SB1070, the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure enacted in the U.S. in generations,[19] explicitly states its intent as implementing the attrition through enforcement strategy.[20]
Conservative bloggerMichelle Malkin supports coordination with federal authorities through the use ofSection 287(g) of theIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 287(g) provides for the deputization of state and local law enforcement officers, for the purposes of reporting of immigrants who have violated immigration law.[21]Morristown, New Jersey mayorDonald Cresitello (Democrat) has sought to deputize his police as immigration agents.Newark, New Jersey city councilman Ron Rice, Jr. has proposed a resolution mandating police to report felony suspects when they are found to be in the United States illegally.[22] Furthermore, theAttorney General of New JerseyAnne Milgram has expanded officers power regardingillegal immigrants. She told thestate police to inform federal authorities when an illegal immigrant is arrested in an indictable crime or for drunk driving. There are an estimated 380,000 people living in New Jersey without proper immigration documents. She said that she wanted local, county and state police to hand more serious cases directly toImmigration and Customs Enforcement.[23]
Others focus onlobbying to lower future illegal immigration levels through congressional action, and to fight amnesties for existing illegal immigrants.
Many immigration restrictionists question the 1898 Supreme Court rulingU.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that individuals born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens and guaranteed all the rights thereof. They feel that citizenship should be denied to the children of immigrants without valid immigration status. Thus they have sought to endbirthright citizenship, through a constitutional amendment or a congressional act.
Denial of public benefits to undocumented individuals is believed to remove the incentives and rewards for illegal immigrants. The 1994California Proposition 187 and the 2004 Arizona Proposition 200Protect Arizona Now were written to require proof of legal status in order to receive non-mandated benefits.
On January 29, 2025, a majority of legislators in theTennessee Senate voted to adopt SB6002, a bill which "creates criminal penalties for officials who adopt sanctuary policies and subsequently requires their removal from office upon conviction".[24] The act charges a Class E felony, resulting in a potential prison sentence of between one and six years,[25] upon "each official who, in their capacity as a member of the governing body of a local government, votes in the affirmative to adopt a sanctuary policy".[26][27][28][29]
Many who support reduced immigration numbers oppose association with the more extreme groups.[30] TheFederation for American Immigration Reform has spoken out in 2004 against the views of another reductionist leader,Virginia Abernethy, calling her views "repulsive separatist views," and called on her to resign from the advisory board of Protect Arizona Now in Arizona. PEB and CCN are also critical of FAIR for FAIR's support of a national ID card, which PEB and CCN oppose. The Protect Arizona Now movement split, with two rival state-level organizations, one supported by FAIR, the other supported by PEB and CCN, working to support the passage of the ballot initiative.
Some polls such as a late 2013 survey by thePublic Religion Research Institute have found widespread opposition to immigration reduction. Said survey stated that 63% of Americans support creating a pathway to citizenship so that formerly illegal residents of the U.S. could gradually acquire it while only 18% back a hypothetical plan to find and deport all illegal residents.[31]
{{cite web}}:|archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)