Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act and more recently as the 1965 Immigration Act, was a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The act formally removed de jure discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Asians, in addition to other non-Western and Northern European ethnicities from the immigration policy of the United States.

The National Origins Formula had been established in the 1920s to preserve American homogeneity by promoting immigration from Western and Northern Europe. The bill received wide support from both northern Democratic and Republican members of Congress, but strong opposition mostly from Southern Democrats, the latter mostly voting Nay or Not Voting. President Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 into law on October 3, 1965. In opening entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than Western and Northern Europeans, the Act significantly altered the demographic mix in the country.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 created a seven-category preference system that gives priority to relatives and children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, professionals and other individuals with specialized skills, and refugees. The act also set a numerical limit on immigration (120,000 per annum) from the Western Hemisphere for the first time in U.S. history. During this period, new arrivals in the United States were overwhelmingly either Northern Europeans of Protestant faith or, prior to 1808, Western Africans brought in to serve as slaves. This pattern shifted in the mid to late 19th century for both the Western and Eastern regions of the United States. There was a large influx of immigration from Asia in the Western region—especially from China, whose workers provided cheap labor—while Eastern and Southern European immigrants settled more in the Eastern United States.

Congress responded to changing demographics of immigration with exclusionary legislation. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 stanched the inflow of Chinese immigrants, and the Immigration Act of 1917 imposed a language proficiency requirement for new immigrants, which greatly reduced immigration from outside of northwest Europe. Finally, the Immigration Act of 1924 permanently established the National Origins Formula, with its restrictions on arrivals from Asia, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe, as the basis of U.S. immigration policy. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, the purpose of the 1924 Act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity" by limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation, including race-based citizenship laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and immigration laws. Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of America's immigration laws in Mein Kampf, saying:

In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. Abroad, former military allies and new independent nations aimed to de-legitimize discriminatory immigration, naturalization and regulations through international organizations like the United Nations. In the United States, the national-based formula had been under scrutiny for a number of years. In 1952, President Truman had directed the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to conduct an investigation and produce a report on the current immigration regulations. The report, Whom We Shall Welcome, served as the blueprint for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement the restrictive immigration laws were seen as an embarrassment. However, only about half the public reciprocated these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking whether they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and 51 percent were in favor. The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was passed on October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century. The Immigration and Naturalization Service continued to deny entry to prospective immigrants who are in the LGBTQ+ community on the grounds that they were "mentally defective", or had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority" until the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against members of the LGBT+ community.

Legislative history

thumb|President [[Lyndon B. Johnson signs the bill into law as Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and others look on.]]

In 1958, Senator John F. Kennedy or his team penned a pamphlet titled A Nation of Immigrants, opposing the immigration quotas set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, after being convinced to do so by the Anti-Defamation League. The content of the pamphlet was based on the ideas of the historian Oscar Handlin and an outline by his student Arthur Mann, with Kennedy's version de-emphasizing the difficulties in assimilation of immigrants elucidated by Handlin and Mann, and promoting a more idealistic view. Immigration reform was promoted by Kennedy during his 1960 presidential campaign, with support from his brothers Robert F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy.

Following Kennedy's civil rights address in June 1963, he had Robert, who was the United States Attorney General, prepare a draft bill, which was authored by Adam Walinsky, and sent it to the Congress on July 23, 1963. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Emanuel Celler, who had advocated for such an immigration reform since the 1920s, and by Philip Hart in the Senate. Ted was assigned to ensure the passage of the bill through the Congress. It was hard to pass this law under Kennedy's administration because Senator James Eastland (D-MS), Representative Michael Feighan (D-OH), and Representative Francis Walter (D-PA), who were in control of the immigration subcommittees, were against immigration reform. However, this president's support did not stop the debate of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 until January 4, 1965, when President Johnson focused his inaugural address on the reform of immigration, which created intense pressure for the heads of the congressional immigration subcommittees. When Celler introduced the bill, he knew that it would be hard for this bill to move from the committee to the floor successfully; the bill's committee was the Immigration and Nationality subcommittee. Also, many cultural and civil rights organizations, like the Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Grand Council of Columbia Association in Civil Service, supported the act. Many of the bill's supporters believed that this future would outlaw racism and prejudice rhetoric that previous immigration quotas have caused; this prejudice has also caused other nations to feel like the United States did not respect them due to their low rating in the previous immigration quotas. Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the United States House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no, and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no, and 11 abstained. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the Act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI) answered questions concerning the possible change in the United States' cultural pattern by an influx of Asians:

Democratic Rep. Michael A. Feighan (OH-20), along with some other Democrats, insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States. In removing racial and national discrimination the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.

Provisions

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (known as the McCarran–Walter Act). It upheld some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924, while at the same time creating new and more inclusive immigration regulations. It maintained per-country limits, which had been a feature of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s, and it developed preference categories.

One of the main components of the act was aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as a basis for immigration, making discriminating against obtaining visas illegal.

It created a seven-category preference system. In this system, it explains how visas should be given out in order of most importance. This system prioritized individuals who were relatives of U.S. citizens, legal permanent resident, professionals, and/or other individuals with specialized skills.

Immediate relatives and "special immigrants" were not subject to numerical restrictions. The law defined "immediate relatives" as children and spouses of United States citizens as well as parents of United States citizens who are 21 years of age or older.

Immediate impact on quota immigrant admissions

thumb|Quota immigrants to the U.S. from the Eastern Hemisphere, by country, for fiscal years ended June 30, 1964–1966

thumb|Quota immigrants to the U.S. from the Eastern Hemisphere, by country, for fiscal years ended June 30, 1968–1970

The Act of October 3, 1965, phased out the National Origins Formula quota system set by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in two stages:

Effective December 1, 1965, during a transition period covering fiscal years ending June 30 of 1966–1968, national quotas continued, but any unused quota spots were pooled and made available to other countries that had exhausted their quota, on a first-come, first-served basis. While still granting first priority to European countries according to the National Origins Formula, immigration from countries with high quotas had slowed to far below maximum allotments. In 1965, 296,697 immigrants were admitted out of a total quota of 158,561.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right"

!rowspan="2"|Annual immigration to the United States

!colspan="4"|National Origins Formula||colspan="4"|Transition period||colspan="4"|Quotas abolished

!Quota

!1965

!1966

!1968

!1969

!1970

| align="left"|Albania

| 100

| 0.06%

| 92

| 0.09%

| 145

| 0.11%

| 478

| 0.31%

| 533

| 0.34%

| 492

| 0.29%

| align="left"|Australia

| 100

| 0.06%

| 100

| 0.10%

| 274

| 0.22%

| 612

| 0.39%

| 659

| 0.42%

| 823

| 0.48%

| align="left"|Austria

| 1,405

| 0.89%

| 1,392

| 1.40%

| 905

| 0.72%

| 951

| 0.61%

| 492

| 0.31%

| 649

| 0.38%

| align="left"|Belgium

| 1,297

| 0.82%

| 1,015

| 1.02%

| 784

| 0.62%

| 594

| 0.38%

| 251

| 0.16%

| 334

| 0.19%

| align="left"|Bulgaria

| 100

| 0.06%

| 96

| 0.10%

| 221

| 0.17%

| 376

| 0.24%

| 500

| 0.32%

| 480

| 0.28%

| align="left"|Burma

| 100

| 0.06%

| 92

| 0.09%

| 154

| 0.12%

| 279

| 0.18%

| 372

| 0.24%

| 597

| 0.35%

| align="left"|China

| 205

| 0.13%

| 134

| 0.13%

| 11,411

| 9.03%

| 9,202

| 5.89%

| 15,341

| 9.75%

| 11,639

| 6.75%

| align="left"|Cyprus

| 100

| 0.06%

| 100

| 0.10%

| 226

| 0.18%

| 240

| 0.15%

| 325

| 0.21%

| 319

| 0.18%

| align="left"|Czechoslovakia

| 2,859

| 1.80%

| 1,965

| 1.98%

| 1,415

| 1.12%

| 1,456

| 0.93%

| 3,051

| 1.94%

| 4,265

| 2.47%

| align="left"|Denmark

| 1,175

| 0.74%

| 1,129

| 1.14%

| 901

| 0.71%

| 1,080

| 0.69%

| 400

| 0.25%

| 387

| 0.22%

| align="left"|Egypt (United Arab Republic)

| 100

| 0.06%

| 101

| 0.10%

| 461

| 0.36%

| 1,600

| 1.02%

| 3,048

| 1.94%

| 4,734

| 2.74%

| align="left"|Estonia

| 115

| 0.07%

| 85

| 0.09%

| 91

| 0.07%

| 67

| 0.04%

| 34

| 0.02%

| 37

| 0.02%

| align="left"|Finland

| 566

| 0.36%

| 540

| 0.54%

| 377

| 0.30%

| 572

| 0.37%

| 190

| 0.12%

| 352

| 0.20%

| align="left"|France

| 3,069

| 1.94%

| 3,011

| 3.03%

| 2,283

| 1.81%

| 2,788

| 1.78%

| 1,323

| 0.84%

| 1,874

| 1.09%

| align="left"|Germany

| 25,814

| 16.28%

| 21,621

| 21.76%

| 14,461

| 11.45%

| 9,557

| 6.12%

| 3,974

| 2.53%

| 4,283

| 2.48%

| align="left"|Greece

| 308

| 0.19%

| 233

| 0.23%

| 4,906

| 3.88%

| 10,442

| 6.68%

| 15,586

| 9.91%

| 14,301

| 8.29%

| align="left"|Hungary

| 865

| 0.55%

| 813

| 0.82%

| 942

| 0.75%

| 1,413

| 0.90%

| 1,309

| 0.83%

| 1,427

| 0.83%

| align="left"|Iceland

| 100

| 0.06%

| 95

| 0.10%

| 62

| 0.05%

| 78

| 0.05%

| 106

| 0.07%

| 173

| 0.10%

| align="left"|India

| 100

| 0.06%

| 99

| 0.10%

| 1,946

| 1.54%

| 4,061

| 2.60%

| 5,484

| 3.49%

| 9,712

| 5.63%

| align="left"|Indonesia

| 200

| 0.13%

| 200

| 0.20%

| 214

| 0.17%

| 455

| 0.29%

| 712

| 0.45%

| 710

| 0.41%

| align="left"|Iran

| 100

| 0.06%

| 101

| 0.10%

| 331

| 0.26%

| 724

| 0.46%

| 902

| 0.57%

| 1,265

| 0.73%

| align="left"|Iraq

| 100

| 0.06%

| 91

| 0.09%

| 475

| 0.38%

| 401

| 0.26%

| 1,081

| 0.69%

| 1,026

| 0.59%

| align="left"|Ireland

| 17,756

| 11.20%

| 5,256

| 5.29%

| 3,068

| 2.43%

| 2,587

| 1.66%

| 1,495

| 0.95%

| 1,199

| 0.69%

| align="left"|Israel

| 100

| 0.06%

| 101

| 0.10%

| 411

| 0.33%

| 1,229

| 0.79%

| 1,832

| 1.16%

| 1,626

| 0.94%

| align="left"|Italy

| 5,666

| 3.57%

| 5,363

| 5.40%

| 18,955

| 15.01%

| 17,130

| 10.97%

| 18,262

| 11.61%

| 19,759

| 11.45%

| align="left"|Japan

| 185

| 0.12%

| 181

| 0.18%

| 677

| 0.54%

| 1,098

| 0.70%

| 1,594

| 1.01%

| 1,755

| 1.02%

| align="left"|Jordan and Palestine

| 200

| 0.13%

| 196

| 0.20%

| 687

| 0.54%

| 1,366

| 0.87%

| 2,120

| 1.35%

| 2,345

| 1.36%

| align="left"|Korea

| 100

| 0.06%

| 111

| 0.11%

| 528

| 0.42%

| 1,549

| 0.99%

| 2,883

| 1.83%

| 5,056

| 2.93%

| align="left"|Latvia

| 235

| 0.15%

| 247

| 0.25%

| 174

| 0.14%

| 126

| 0.08%

| 81

| 0.05%

| 65

| 0.04%

| align="left"|Lebanon

| 100

| 0.06%

| 100

| 0.10%

| 227

| 0.18%

| 547

| 0.35%

| 1,018

| 0.65%

| 1,476

| 0.86%

| align="left"|Lithuania

| 384

| 0.24%

| 395

| 0.40%

| 273

| 0.22%

| 147

| 0.09%

| 77

| 0.05%

| 55

| 0.03%

| align="left"|Malta

| 100

| 0.06%

| 41

| 0.04%

| 228

| 0.18%

| 217

| 0.14%

| 320

| 0.20%

| 311

| 0.18%

| align="left"|Morocco

| 100

| 0.06%

| 96

| 0.10%

| 145

| 0.11%

| 270

| 0.17%

| 468

| 0.30%

| 330

| 0.19%

| align="left"|New Zealand

| 100

| 0.06%

| 88

| 0.09%

| 122

| 0.10%

| 234

| 0.15%

| 264

| 0.17%

| 321

| 0.19%

| align="left"|Netherlands

| 3,136

| 1.98%

| 3,132

| 3.15%

| 2,242

| 1.78%

| 2,179

| 1.39%

| 1,097

| 0.70%

| 1,357

| 0.79%

| align="left"|Norway

| 2,364

| 1.49%

| 2,237

| 2.25%

| 1,584

| 1.25%

| 1,173

| 0.75%

| 485

| 0.31%

| 346

| 0.20%

| align="left"|Pakistan

| 100

| 0.06%

| 99

| 0.10%

| 256

| 0.20%

| 588

| 0.38%

| 761

| 0.48%

| 1,406

| 0.81%

| align="left"|Philippines

| 100

| 0.06%

| 95

| 0.10%

| 2,687

| 2.13%

| 12,349

| 7.91%

| 16,204

| 10.30%

| 23,351

| 13.53%

| align="left"|Poland

| 6,488

| 4.09%

| 6,238

| 6.28%

| 7,103

| 5.62%

| 4,744

| 3.04%

| 3,198

| 2.03%

| 2,811

| 1.63%

| align="left"|Portugal

| 438

| 0.28%

| 428

| 0.43%

| 7,163

| 5.67%

| 11,444

| 7.33%

| 15,836

| 10.07%

| 12,627

| 7.32%

| align="left"|Romania

| 289

| 0.18%

| 294

| 0.30%

| 1,090

| 0.86%

| 675

| 0.43%

| 1,074

| 0.68%

| 1,533

| 0.89%

| align="left"|South Africa

| 100

| 0.06%

| 93

| 0.09%

| 168

| 0.13%

| 321

| 0.21%

| 270

| 0.17%

| 400

| 0.23%

| align="left"|Soviet Union

| 2,697

| 1.70%

| 2,707

| 2.72%

| 1,748

| 1.38%

| 950

| 0.61%

| 777

| 0.49%

| 698

| 0.40%

| align="left"|Spain

| 250

| 0.16%

| 251

| 0.25%

| 982

| 0.78%

| 1,741

| 1.11%

| 2,551

| 1.62%

| 3,005

| 1.74%

| align="left"|Sweden

| 3,295

| 2.08%

| 2,415

| 2.43%

| 1,778

| 1.41%

| 1,511

| 0.97%

| 522

| 0.33%

| 485

| 0.28%

| align="left"|Switzerland

| 1,698

| 1.07%

| 1,716

| 1.73%

| 1,310

| 1.04%

| 1,734

| 1.11%

| 517

| 0.33%

| 836

| 0.48%

| align="left"|Syria

| 100

| 0.06%

| 108

| 0.11%

| 155

| 0.12%

| 441

| 0.28%

| 800

| 0.51%

| 939

| 0.54%

| align="left"|Thailand

| 100

| 0.06%

| 89

| 0.09%

| 88

| 0.07%

| 266

| 0.17%

| 542

| 0.34%

| 602

| 0.35%

| align="left"|Turkey

| 225

| 0.14%

| 171

| 0.17%

| 672

| 0.53%

| 983

| 0.63%

| 1,499

| 0.95%

| 1,583

| 0.92%

| align="left"|United Kingdom

| 65,361

| 41.22%

| 29,923

| 30.11%

| 23,721

| 18.78%

| 33,550

| 21.48%

| 14,962

| 9.51%

| 15,133

| 8.77%

| align="left"|Vietnam

| 100

| 0.06%

| 97

| 0.10%

| 104

| 0.08%

| 94

| 0.06%

| 174

| 0.11%

| 248

| 0.14%

| align="left"|Yemen

| 100

| 0.06%

| 75

| 0.08%

| 103

| 0.08%

| 107

| 0.07%

| 308

| 0.20%

| 434

| 0.25%

| align="left"|Yugoslavia

| 942

| 0.59%

| 926

| 0.93%

| 2,370

| 1.88%

| 5,295

| 3.39%

| 7,895

| 5.02%

| 8,026

| 4.65%

| align="left"|Total from Europe

| 149,697

| 94.41%

| 94,128

| 94.71%

| 102,197

| 80.91%

| 116,210

| 74.39%

| 98,480

| 62.60%

| 98,939

| 57.34%

| align="left"|Total from Asia

| 3,690

| 2.33%

| 3,292

| 3.31%

| 21,644

| 17.14%

| 35,510

| 22.73%

| 53,000

| 33.69%

| 65,246

| 37.81%

| align="left"|Total from Africa

| 4,274

| 2.70%

| 1,332

| 1.34%

| 1,658

| 1.31%

| 3,321

| 2.13%

| 4,586

| 2.92%

| 6,736

| 3.90%

| align="left"|Total from all quota countries

| 158,561

| 100.00%

| 99,381

| 100.00%

| 126,310

| 100.00%

| 156,212

| 100.00%

| 157,306

| 100.00%

| 172,546

| 100.00%

Wages under foreign certification

As per the rules under the Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. organizations are permitted to employ foreign workers either temporarily or permanently to fulfill certain types of job requirements.

Legacy

thumb|right|Foreign-born in U.S. labor force 1900-2015

The proponents of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson said it was "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions." Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix. altering the ethnic makeup of the U.S. with increased numbers of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the West Indies, and elsewhere in the Americas. The 1965 act also imposed the first cap on total immigration from the Americas, marking the first time numerical limitations were placed on immigration from Latin American countries, including Mexico. If the bill and its subsequent immigration waves since had not been passed, it is estimated by Pew Research that the U.S. would have been in 2015: 75% Non-Hispanic White, 14% Black, 8% Hispanic and less than 1% Asian.

In the twenty years following passage of the law, 25,000 professional Filipino workers, including thousands of nurses, entered the U.S. under the law's occupational provision.Family reunification under the law greatly increased the total number of immigrants, including Europeans, admitted to the U.S.; Between 1960 and 1975, 20,000 Italians arrived annually to join relatives who had earlier immigrated. Total immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and again between 1970 and 1990. Immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970 to 1980, and to 39 percent from 1980 to 1990. The percentage of foreign-born in the United States increased from 5 percent in 1965 to 14 percent in 2016.

The elimination of the National Origins Formula and the introduction of numeric limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, along with the strong demand for immigrant workers by U.S. employers, led to rising numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in the decades after 1965, especially in the Southwest. Policies in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that were designed to curtail migration across the Mexico–U.S. border led many unauthorized workers to settle permanently in the U.S. These demographic trends became a central part of anti-immigrant activism from the 1980s, leading to greater border militarization, rising apprehension of illegal immigrants by the Border Patrol, and a focus in the media on the criminality of illegal immigrants.

The Immigration and Nationality Act's elimination of national and ethnic quotas has limited recent efforts at immigration restriction. In January 2017, President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 temporarily halted immigration from seven majority-Muslim nations. However, lower federal courts ruled that the executive order violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court overrode both appeals courts and allowed the second ban to go into effect, but carved out an exemption for persons with "bona fide relationships" in the U.S. In December 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the full travel ban—now in its third incarnation—to take effect, which excludes people who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, saying that the president's power to secure the country's borders, delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking, was not undermined by the president's history of arguably incendiary statements about the dangers he said some Muslims pose to the United States.

References

External links

8 USC Chapter 12 of the United States Code from LII
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (PDF/details) in the GPO Statute Compilations collection
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 as enacted (79 Stat. 911) in the US Statutes at Large
DHS Immigration Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
EOIR Immigration Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 in the South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA)
Immigration Policy in the United States (2006), Congressional Budget office.
The Great Society Congress

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Legislative history

Provisions

Immediate impact on quota immigrant admissions

Wages under foreign certification

Legacy

See also

References

Further reading

External links