Executive Summary This article uses a multidisciplinary approach — analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data — to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylum system and those who oppose it. Today, the flexible system of protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylum policies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity of Donald Trump’s harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts.
This article uses a multidisciplinary approach — analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data — to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylum system and those who oppose it. Today, the flexible system of protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylum policies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity of Donald Trump’s harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts.
The governance of immigration has a checkered past, and policy makers' efforts at reform rarely meet expectations. Critiques have echoed over the years and across the political spectrum. The current system of immigration governance is scattered around the federal government, with no clear chain of command. No single government department or agency captures the breadth of the Immigration and Nationality Act's reach. At the crux of understanding immigration governance is acknowledging that immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. The abundance of commissions that have studied the issues and the various administrative structures over time offers some wisdom on ingredients for successful governance. Based upon this research, options for effective immigration governance emerge. This paper studies the administration of immigration law and policy with an eye trained on immigration governance for the future. It opens with a historical overview that provides the backdrop for the current state of affairs. It then breaks down the missions and functions of the Immigration and Nationality Act by the lead agencies tasked with these responsibilities. The paper concludes with an analysis of options for improving immigration governance. Each of these options poses unique challenges as well as political obstacles.
Growing up in the Upper Ohio Valley, where the local economy had until recent decades depended on mining and steel, provided me with a rough education in the vagaries of employment. The boom time of the 1950s and 1960s gave way to decades when, for many, unemployment always lurked around the corner. The book is dedicated to my parents, Charles Terry Wasem and Jessie McCullough Wasem, who lived most of their lives in eastern Ohio. I would further acknowledge my brother, Terry Denton Wasem, and my lifelong friend Jackie Hawk Dunlap, both of whom live in eastern Ohio today, for their moral support as I was writing this book. The kernel of this book was a dissertation begun during the recession of 1982, the last time U.S. unemployment had reached 10 percent before it briefly topped out at that number in November 2009. The Institute for Social Research's Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan funded much of my graduate studies and enabled me to work with many outstanding researchers. The Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum also provided research funding, and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies gave tuition support. Considerable credit is due to my dissertation chair, Jerome M. Clubb, and committee members Maris A. Vinovskis, John E. Jackson, and Terrence J. McDonald for holding me to high academic standards while providing the encouragement necessary to complete the dissertation in 1989. Fast-forward two decades to 2009, when the nation was in the midst of the Great Recession. Joyce Vialet and her husband, John Vialet, became the catalysts for this book. Joyce had been my mentor in immigration policy at the Congressional Research Service and recalled that I was completing a dissertation on employment policy when we began working together in the late 1980s. Had it not been for the Vialets' interest in discussing this subject during a stormy weekend in 2009 at Newport, Rhode Island, this book may never have been written. Soon all of my free time was devoted to researching the Employment Act of 1946 anew. As we walked our dogs together, neighbors Tad and Susan Cantril guided me to the public opinion data from the 1940s that formed the basis of Chapter 3. Survey research experts (and former classmates from the University of Michigan) Celinda Lake, Barbara Smela, and Fran Featherston provided valuable comments on that chapter. Labor economists Linda Levine and Gerry Mayer, as well as Joyce, Barbara, and Fran, reviewed the first draft of the manuscript.
After the Second World War, liberal reformers in the US Congress pushed refugee legislation and included refugee provisions in their immigration reform bills. Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were among those who urged Congress to enact refugee legislation. Without a statutory pathway for persons entering as refugees or asylees to become lawful permanent residents (lprs), refugee admissions were reactive. Some presidents would draw on other executive authorities to bring refugees into the United States, relying on Congress to subsequently enact laws providing lpr status. In other instances, Congress would enact refugee legislation aimed at specific populations and limited numbers. As a result, refugee policy was handled in a piecemeal and incremental fashion during this period. It is within this context that this article explores the nexus of refugee and labour migration policies and the role the nativist right-wing political leaders played in shaping US policy in this period.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.