Tiffany Walker

PO522 American Social Policy

Professor Krimmel

5 December 2015

Exclusion In Immigration Policy

Immigration reform has been increasingly debated in presidential races in the

last decade. The debate has been largely framed around one immigrant group, Latinos.

The 2016 Republican debates have involved a number of discussions on immigration

policy; Candidates like Donald Trump believe that the United States needs a wall on the

border with Mexico.i However, I argue that there is already a wall blocking immigrant

applicants for United States citizenship.

I will specifically focus on the Mexican immigrant population because they

comprise the largest Hispanic immigrant group; Mexicans make up 34,582,000 of the

53,964,000 of the Hispanic population within the US.ii Mexican immigrants comprise

the largest immigrant group within the United States. Moreover, Mexican immigrants

have lower rates of naturalization compared to the overall immigrant population; only

36 percent of eligible Mexican immigrants become naturalized compared to 61 percent

of all immigrants. The high rate of immigration, legally and illegally, into the United

States from Mexico is understandable because of the shared border between the two

countries.

I argue first that the United States attempts to keep out Mexican immigrants

purposefully through the requirements for citizenship and visas. I will first point out

1

the structural, financial, and personal barriers to naturalization and gaining legal

permanent resident status. Then I will demonstrate the disparity in acceptance rates

and waiting periods between Mexico and other countries that prevents immigrants

from becoming legal permanent residents or citizens. Thirdly, I will reveal the

discrimination in employment based visa acceptances. Fourthly, I will explore how

immigration policy enforcement attempts to expel Mexican immigrants from the

United States at much higher rates than any other immigrant population. The last

section will be dedicated to showing how the standstill in immigration reform may be

caused by the benefits of undocumented workers for industries like agriculture.

Section I: Barriers Within Application Requirements

Discrimination and purposeful exclusion starts in the application process. There

are a few key structural barriers in the US immigration policy that undermine non-

discriminatory policies. Firstly, the applicant requirements include the sponsorship of

a family member that is either a US citizen or a legal permanent resident, or sponsored

by an employer. iii The requirement that potential immigrants need to have ties to the

United States makes it difficult for groups of people who have previously been

excluded from immigration policies.

The Immigration Act of 1924 established quotas for immigrant populations;

Southern and Eastern Europeans were given 14 percent of the accepted applicant

spots, Northern and Western Europeans were given 82 percent, and the remaining

spots went to applicants from the rest of the world. The Immigration Act of 1924 was

2

repealed and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965,

which dismantled the quota system.iv Even though the quota system was removed,

some immigrants would still have no connections to the US and would experience

difficulty in the application process.

The current immigration policy attempts to limit the number of lower class and

poorer immigrants, particularly immigrants of Mexican origin. The top preference

categories for the permanent employment based preference system consists of

“persons of extraordinary ability”, persons with professional degrees, and skilled

workers with two or more years or training that is not temporary or seasonal. Mexican

immigrants are largely excluded from this employment based visa program due to the

education system within Mexico. Enrollment in tertiary education in Mexico was only

32.8 percent in 2012v, and on average only 18 percent of students in Mexico graduate

from university.vi The low graduation rate hinders Mexican immigrants from applying

for employment visas that require professional degrees. There is no line or path for

immigrants to enter the U.S. without education.

The United States places caps on the number of immigrants that can emigrate

from any one country; the number of immigrants cannot exceed seven percent in a

single year. The capping policy hurts larger countries like Mexico because the rate of

immigration from Mexico to the U.S. will naturally be higher than countries that are

smaller and farther in proximity. Mexican immigrants, as well as Latino immigrants,

are additionally excluded from the diversity program, which selects immigrants from

countries that have sent less than 55,000 immigrants to the US in the last five years.

3

Financial obstacles more frequently delay naturalization for legal permanent

residents with low house hold incomes. Money plays an important role in excluding

groups of immigrants, specifically Mexican immigrants. The current application system

requires applicants to pay $985 to file for a green card, $85 for fingerprinting, and

$680 for the citizenship application. With the median income for Mexican immigrants

being only $20,000 a year, the total fee being $1,750 per applicant is equal to about 8

percent of total annual income. Additionally, the median individual income for Mexican

immigrants is up from $17,900 in 1990; however, the median household income is

down from $38,600 in 1990 to $34,000 today.vii Moreover, in 2013 youth

unemployment, ages 15 to 24, was 9.4 percent in Mexico. According to the World Bank

Data Surveys, in 2012 52.3 percent of Mexican citizens lived below the poverty line.viii

The cost to apply is too high for many Mexican immigrants and it hinders their ability

to come to the United States legally.

Furthermore, personal barriers specifically complicate the application process

for Mexican LPRs. They are more likely to say they have not been naturalized because

of personal hurdles, such as the English proficiency requirement, than non Mexican

LPRs. For example, 33 percent of Mexican born immigrants cite personal obstacles

compared to 17 percent of Hispanic immigrants.ix

Section II: Discrimination within Acceptance Process

The overall number of accepted Legal Permanent Residents has declined since

2011. There were 1,062,040 new LPRs in 2011, compared to only 990,553 in 2013, an

4

overall decrease of 71,487 LPR application acceptances. Moreover, the number of

accepted Mexican LPRs has also decreased from 143,446 in 2011 to 135,028 in 2013. x

In 2013, only 135,068 of Mexican applications were accepted out of the 1,323,978

Mexicans who applied, which is an acceptance rate of about 10 percent.xi The

acceptance rate of about 10 percent is low compared to the 24 percent acceptance rate

of Cubans and 15 percent acceptance rate of Indians.xii

Furthermore, there is a disparity between the average waiting periods for

immigrants from various parts of the world. According to Homeland Security,

“immigrants born in Africa spend the least time in legal immigrant status (5 years),

followed by immigrants from Asia and South America (6 years), Europe (7 years),

Oceania (8 years), and North America (10 years).”xiii The acceptance process is much

longer for those in North America, particularly from Mexico. The four countries with

the longest waiting periods are Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines.xiv The

prolonged waiting period deters immigrants from attempting to become citizens

because the possibility of acceptance seems almost unreachable.

Section III: Exclusions in Acceptance For Employment Based Visas

Employment based immigration can be in the form of a temporary visa or

permanent residence. There are currently twenty different types of temporary visas,

many of which are for highly skilled workers or immigrants with temporary work visas

that are sponsored by a specific employer for a particular job offer. There is a limit on

the number of permanent employment based visas per year of 140,000; these visas are

5

divided into five preferences and each is subject to limitations. For example, “persons

of extraordinary ability” are capped at 40,000 immigrants and “other” unskilled

laborers are capped at 5,000 per year. These caps affect Mexican immigrants especially

because of the lower graduation rates within Mexico.

Overall Mexican immigrants are not given a large number of employment visas,

and in recent years the number of visas awarded to Mexican immigrants has been

decreasing. For the sake of understanding and clarity I will only compare the numbers

from the first three preference categories, which include: priority workers,

professionals holding advanced degrees and persons of exceptional ability, and skilled

workers. “Other workers” are included within preference three, but I separate the two

because “other worker” includes unskilled workers and workers capable of taking

positions that require less than two years of training or experience.

Mexican applicants chosen for the first preference category or “priority

workers” has decreased from 202 in 2005 to 48 in 2014.xv The total number of

accepted applicants for the first preference has declined significantly since 2005, from

4,671 to only 1,680.xvi However, some countries acceptance rates have increased from

2005 to 2014. China’s number of accepted applicants for the first preference has

increased from 228 to 368. South Korean accepted applicants have also risen from 97

in 2005 to 207 in 2014.xvii The low number of awarded work visas to Mexican

immigrants compared to others appears to suggest there is a desire to limit

immigration from Mexico.

6

Mexican applicants for the second category are largely nonexistent. There were

17 accepted applicants in 2005, which dropped to only 4 accepted applicants in

2014.xviii Overall, the number of total accepted applicants for the second category

increased over that same period from 1,478 to 1,880. Similar to the trend in the first

preference category, South Korean accepted applicants increased from 38 in 2005 to

664 in 2014.

The third preference category, only counting skilled workers and professionals,

does not produce any significant increase or decrease trend. However, the third

preference category in regards to “other workers” provides a trend for Mexican

accepted applicants. From 2005 until 2014, the number of Mexican immigrants

accepted under preference three has increased from 2 to 59.xix The number of accepted

applicants is not extremely impressive, but the third category is the only category in

which the number of accepted Mexican applicants has increased over the years 2005 to

2014.

The differentiation in the number of applicants accepted for each category

displays some exclusion of Mexicans in the first two groups. While that could be

attributed to lower levels of education among Mexican applicants, countries like Egypt

saw a slight increase in the number of accepted applicants for priority one. Egypt’s

college enrollment rate is relatively similar to Mexico’s at about 25 percent of the

population is attending or has attended university.xx

Section IV: Inequality in Deportation and Immigration Policy Enforcement

7

Beyond application and acceptance exclusion, the United States also enforces

immigration policy unjustly with heavy emphasis on Mexican immigrants. The United

States has and is currently pouring billions of U.S. dollars into border security and

enforcement. The government has invested in surveillance technology, fencing, and

security personnel.xxi The new upgrades are particularly concentrated along the U.S.-

Mexican border that stretches about 1,933 miles.xxii The number of Border Patrol

agents has increased significantly along the Mexican border. The personnel numbers

jumped from 2,500 in the 1980s to over 21,000 in the last decade.xxiii

According to a CQ Researcher report on border security, the fourth amendment

to the Constitution protects against unlawful search and seizures, however within 100

miles of the border authorities are permitted to stop and search individuals and

vehicles without a warrant or probable cause. The U.S. Supreme Court’s “border search

exception” rule provides authorities with this power.xxiv This unrestricted power makes

room for abuse and discrimination; the majority of resources and personnel are

concentrated on the border with Mexico. Moreover, many security experts have

maintained that the U.S.’s border with Canada poses a greater threat to American

security because it is so lightly patrolled.xxv However, nothing has changed along the

Canadian border, security and personnel remain mostly in the South.

The number of deportations in the United States has reached record levels,

averaging 400,000 per year during the Obama administration.xxvi Moreover, in 2010 97

percent of the deportations were of Hispanic origin, and Mexican immigrants

specifically made up 73 percent of deportees in the same year.xxvii According to the Pew

8

Hispanic Center, “ among the nation’s unauthorized immigrants, 58 percent are from

Mexico, 15 percentage points lower than their share among all deportees.”xxviii There

appears to be a disproportionate number of Mexican deportations that potentially

arises from the over abundance of border security resources on the Mexican border.

Section V: The Exclusionary Policy Used To Exploit

The United States government allows discrimination to occur through inaction

regarding immigration reform. In 2014, there was an estimated 11.3 million

unauthorized immigrants living within the United States, which is about 3.5 percent of

the nation’s population.xxix Mexicans make up about half of all unauthorized immigrants

in the United States. The last two immigration reforms, the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, turned

Mexican migrant workers into illegal workers, and used that legal status to justify

discrimination.xxx

Despite the typically generous interpretation of the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1965, the law was restrictive when it came to Mexican migrants. The

1965 act attempted to ban Latino immigrants under the Bracero program.xxxi Some

have argued that the word “undocumented” has become tied to the word “criminal”.

After 1965, immigration policies imposed more restrictive terms for legal entry into

the United States, which resulted in the reclassification of Mexican and other Latin

Americans as illegal immigrants.xxxii Due to this new terminology Mexican immigrants

9

became increasingly characterized as criminals simply because they did not possess

documentation.xxxiii

The criminalization of employment for the undocumented population has

created an “underground economy” that keeps growing because of the economic

benefits of hiring low cost workers.xxxiv Some have even gone so far to say that

undocumented workers have created what Nancy Zarate Byrd calls an “underground

economy” in the United States. This covert economy exploits undocumented workers

as a source of cheap labor for United States’ employers.xxxv The economy has also been

referred to as an “informal” economy.xxxvi The government does not currently have a

solution for dealing fairly with undocumented immigrants currently here in the United

States. Therefore, undocumented immigrants continue to be at risk of extreme

exploitation and unfair treatment. This population is almost completely at the mercy of

their employers because of the fear of deportation. They feel that they cannot speak

out against abuse because they risk deportation, and they often lack basic rights such

as obtaining higher education.

There are certain sectors of the United States economy that benefit highly from

illegal immigration such as construction and agriculture. There are about 8.4 million

unauthorized immigrants employed in the United States, making up about 5.2 percent

of the total labor force.xxxvii Susan Combs, a woman from the Texas Comptroller Office,

stated that the Texas work force would decrease by 6.3 percent without the

undocumented population.xxxviii Moreover, the overall Texan gross state product would

decrease by 2.1 percent just from the disappearance of the undocumented labor

10

pool.xxxix It is conceivable that this trend does not solely apply to Texas, but to all states

with a large population of undocumented immigrants.

The agriculture sector relies heavily on undocumented workers. According to

the US Department of Agriculture, about 50 percent of the workers employed in the

crop agricultural sector were undocumented immigrants. The USDA went further to

warn “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit

and vegetable industry.”xl

The costs of illegal immigration and the exploitation of workers

disproportionally benefit the industries that hire large numbers of undocumented

workers. Work in the informal economy contrasts sharply with formal employment.

Wages and working conditions are second-rate compared to those working in the

formal economy.xli There is no guaranteed time off such as paid holidays or vacations

for undocumented workers.

Moreover, the overall United States population benefits from the illegal

immigrant population. As United States citizens age, specifically the Baby Boomers, the

burden to finance their retirement is alleviated by undocumented immigrants who

have contributed to the Social Security Fund.xlii Over the years, undocumented workers

have contributed up to 300 billion of the 2.7 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund.xliii

Undocumented Immigrants also pay taxes. An analysis done by the Institute on

Taxation and Economic Policy found that roughly 8.1 million undocumented

immigrants paid more than 11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012.xliv Yet, illegal

immigrants are barred from most social programs such as public housing. The U.S.

11

Housing and Urban Development Department require proof of legal status in order to

be considered for public housing.xlv Undocumented immigrants pour money into a

system that does not recognize them as legitimate citizens, and ultimately bars them

from accessing certain privileges that come with being U.S. citizens.

Conclusion:

Mexican immigrants are largely barred from certain paths to citizenship

because of the lower levels of education compared to other countries. Employment

based visas are not open to many Mexican immigrants. The family based visa program

contains barriers that hinder Mexican immigrants from becoming United States

citizens or LPRs. Mexican Immigrants are discriminated against in the application

process as well as in the acceptance process, and in turn are forced to make a choice.

Many Mexican immigrants that cannot apply for legal citizenship or LPR status choose

to come in the U.S. illegally.

The injustice and inequality goes beyond just policy, enactment of the

immigration policy has attempted to limit Mexican immigration to the United States.

The government deports a large number of undocumented immigrants, specifically

Mexican immigrants. The U.S. focuses most of its Border Patrol resources to reducing

illegal immigrants, but only on the Mexican border. The immigration debate has been

at a standstill for a few years. I argue that the government does not move forward with

immigration reform because the U.S. economy benefits heavily from undocumented

12

immigrants. Industries like agriculture and construction would be heavily crippled if

all undocumented workers were deported from the United States.

13

i Ross, Janell. “Donald Trump's Immigration Policy is Potent”. 28 september 2015ii Lopez, Gustavo. "The Impact of Slowing Immigration." 15 September 2015. Pew Research Center.iii Boswell, Richard A. "Racism and U.S. Immigration Law." n.d.iv Jr., Charles J. Ogletree. "America's Schizophrenic Immigration Policy: Race, Class, and Reason." n.d.v The World Bank. "School Enrollment, Tertiary (% Gross)." The World Bankvi Clark, Nick. "Education in Mexico." World Education News and Reviews, 1 May 2013.vii Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana. “A Demographic Portrait of Mexican-Origin Hispanics in the United States.” Pew Research Center. 1 May 2013. viii The World Factbook, “Population Below Poverty Line: Mexico”. Central Intelligence Agency. ix Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana. “The Path Not Taken.” Pew Research Center. 4 Feburary 2013.x Office of Immigration Statistics, “2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” Homeland Security. August 2014. xi Ibid. xii Ibid. xiii Ibid. xiv Basu, Moni. “Waits for Immigration Status”. CNN. 9 September 2014. xv Bureau of Consular Affairs, “Immigrant Visas Issued and Adjustments of Status Subject to Numerical Limitations FY 2014, 2010, 2005”. Department of State. 2014.xvi Ibid. xvii Ibid. xviii Ibid. xix Ibid. xx Camplin, Troy. “Egypt’s Revolution and Higher Education.” The John William Pope Center. 6 Feburary 2011. xxi CQ Researcher, “Border Security.” CQ Press. 27 September 2013.xxii Ibid. xxiii Ibid. xxiv Ibid. xxv Ibid.xxvi Lopez, Mark Hugo, “Recent Trends in U.S. Immigration Enforcement.” Pew Research Center. 28 December 2011. xxvii Ibid. xxviii Ibid.xxix Ibid. xxx Chomsky, Aviva, “Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.” Beacon Press. 1 January 2014. xxxi Kim, Y. Nadia, “A Return to More Blatant Class and “Race” Bias in U.S. Immigration Policy?” Du Bois Review. 2007. xxxii Chomsky, Aviva, “Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.” Beacon Press. 1 January 2014xxxiii Byrd, Nancy Zarate. “The Dirty Side of Domestic Work: An Underground Economy and the Exploitation of Undocumented Workers.” 2009. xxxiv Ibid.xxxv Ibid. xxxvi Goodman, H.A. “Illegal Immigrants Benefit the U.S. Economy.” The Hill. 23 April 2014.

xxxvii Lopez, Mark Hugo, “Recent Trends in U.S. Immigration Enforcement.” Pew Research Center. 28 December 2011.xxxviii Goodman, H.A. “Illegal Immigrants Benefit the U.S. Economy.” The Hill. 23 April 2014. xxxix Ibid. xl Ibid. xli Ibid. xlii Apuzzo, Matt. “U.S. to Continue Racial, Ethnic Profiling in Border Policy.” New York Times. 5 December 2014. xliii Ibid. xliv Pianin, Eric, “Study Finds Illegal Immigrants Pay $11.8B in Taxes.” The Fiscal Times. 16 April 2015.xlv Holan, Angie Drobnic, “Fact-Checking Immigration.” Politifact. 1 July 2012.

Works Cited

Apuzzo, Matt. “U.S. to Continue Racial, Ethnic Profiling in Border Policy.” New York Times. 5 December 2014.

Basu, Moni. “Waits for Immigration Status”. CNN. 9 September 2014.

Bureau of Consular Affairs, “Immigrant Visas Issued and Adjustments of Status Subject to Numerical Limitations FY 2014, 2010, 2005”. Department of State. 2014.

Boswell, Richard A. "Racism and U.S. Immigration Law." n.d

Byrd, Nancy Zarate. “The Dirty Side of Domestic Work: An Underground Economy and the Exploitation of Undocumented Workers.” 2009.

Clark, Nick. "Education in Mexico." World Education News and Reviews, 1 May 2013.

Camplin, Troy. “Egypt’s Revolution and Higher Education.” The John William Pope Center. 6 Feburary 2011.

Chomsky, Aviva, “Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.” Beacon Press. 1 January 2014.

CQ Researcher, “Border Security.” CQ Press. 27 September 2013.

Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana. “A Demographic Portrait of Mexican-Origin Hispanics in the United States.” Pew Research Center. 1 May 2013.

Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana. “The Path Not Taken.” Pew Research Center. 4 Feburary 2013.

Goodman, H.A. “Illegal Immigrants Benefit the U.S. Economy.” The Hill. 23 April 2014.

Holan, Angie Drobnic, “Fact-Checking Immigration.” Politifact. 1 July 2012.

Jr., Charles J. Ogletree. "America's Schizophrenic Immigration Policy: Race, Class, and Reason." n.d.

Kim, Y. Nadia, “A Return to More Blatant Class and “Race” Bias in U.S. Immigration Policy?” Du Bois Review. 2007.

Lopez, Gustavo. "The Impact of Slowing Immigration." 15 September 2015. Pew Research Center.

Lopez, Mark Hugo, “Recent Trends in U.S. Immigration Enforcement.” Pew Research Center. 28 December 2011.

Office of Immigration Statistics, “2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” Homeland Security. August 2014.

Pianin, Eric, “Study Finds Illegal Immigrants Pay $11.8B in Taxes.” The Fiscal Times. 16 April 2015.

Ross, Janell. “Donald Trump's Immigration Policy is Potent”. 28 september 2015.

The World Bank. "School Enrollment, Tertiary (% Gross)." The World Bank.

The World Factbook, “Population Below Poverty Line: Mexico”. Central Intelligence Agency.