Immigration in the twenty-first century: a personnel selection approach.

AuthorBrunner, Lawrence
PositionEssay

Immigration is an integral part of the U.S. social fabric. As of 2004, a total of 12 percent of the population was foreign born. (1) Immigrants account for a disproportionate share of population growth because they are younger and have higher fertility rates than natives. Because of immigration's importance, immigration policy has been debated throughout our history. In the past thirty years, the United States has undergone tremendous changes, yet immigration policy has not changed with the times. In this article, we propose an immigration policy adapted to the twenty-first century--when global competition and high-technology workplaces will predominate--and argue that a policy based on theory and research in personnel selection would be more effective than current policy or the popular alternatives. We first provide a brief historical overview of U.S. immigration policy, then discuss concerns about current policy and alternatives, and finally sketch a policy based on personnel selection. We are not concerned here about how many immigrants should be permitted to enter the country, but about how those who are admitted will be chosen. We wish to optimize the attributes of the immigrants who are admitted, given that limits on immigration will continue to exist. (2)

A Brief Survey of U.S. Immigration

The United States has experienced four periods of immigration (Martin and Midgley 1999). The first was from the eighteenth through the late nineteenth centuries, when the majority of immigrants came from the British Isles and western Europe. (3) The economy was primarily agricultural, with relatively little economic integration, and the open-immigration policy during this period helped to populate the country. Supporters of this policy viewed immigrants as beneficial to businesses and the economy (Martin and Midgley 1999). For the most part, the nation's elites regarded immigration positively, although some natives were hostile to immigrants they perceived as different. (4)

During the second period, from the late nineteenth century to 1921, the policy was an extension of open immigration with some restrictions. Strong economic growth increased the demand for labor, and the political and economic dislocations in many parts of Europe created a large supply of potential immigrants. Immigration surged from the late nineteenth century until the early 1920s, in what has been called the First Great Migration (Hatton and Williamson 1994). More immigrants entered the United States during the First Great Migration than at any other time in the country's history (including the present). The majority who arrived during this period came from southern and eastern Europe. Although immigration remained mostly open, Congress passed legislation to exclude some immigrants. In 1875, it barred prostitutes and convicts, and in 1882 paupers and "mental defectives." These restrictions were based on individual qualities and did not discriminate on the basis of any racial, national, or ethnic identity, with one exception: the Chinese. Opponents of Chinese immigration argued that the Chinese could not be assimilated and that a "yellow horde" would overwhelm the country and its dominant culture. Some people, particularly in California, also feared that new Chinese immigrants would adversely affect natives' wages. Although nativists had argued since prerevolutionary times against allowing people of particular nationalities or ethnicity to immigrate, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first such restriction enacted. Thus began a long period in U.S. immigration policy when restrictions, rather than being based on individual qualities, were made primarily on the basis of group membership.

The psychological literature on prejudice and stereotyping would interpret these restrictions as based on bigotry (Stangor et al. 1992; Kurzban, Tooby, and Cosmides 2001). An alternative economic interpretation is that the restrictions were driven by the ratio of unskilled wages to average income (Timmer and Williamson 1998). When immigrant quality declines and unskilled wages fall relative to average wages, policy responds by reducing immigrant supply. This view finds support in immigrant-receiving countries besides the United States, such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Canada (Timmer and Williamson 1998). This policy change is a response to the self-interest of native wage earners, regardless of racial or ethnic identity, as well as to concerns about increased income inequality.

The third period began in 1921 and lasted until 1965, an era known as the "immigration pause." People who immigrated during this time came primarily from western Europe. Policy during this pause reduced the number of immigrants and restricted immigrants by ethnicity and nationality. It reflected concerns with assimilation, economic difficulties, and the cultural characteristics of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. In 1921, Congress restricted the number of immigrants annually allowed, and in 1924 it mandated a quota system that preserved the existing proportions of ethnic groups in the country. Although the restrictive policies of the 1920s remained in force in the 1940s, policies opened slightly at that time to allow highly talented individuals and refugees to enter.

The fourth period began in 1965 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (hereafter referred to as the 1965 Act) and continues to the present. It produced what has been called the Second Great Migration, consisting primarily of Asians and Hispanics arriving during the 1980s and 1990s (Borjas 1999a). The 1965 Act made four major changes to existing policy. It abolished the quota system, placed limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, put a cap of twenty thousand per year on the number of immigrants from any one country, and extended the family reunification provision to include parents of citizens. (5) The final version of the 1965 Act emphasized family reunification. (6) Spouses, unmarried children, and parents of U.S. citizens were exempted from preference and numerical requirements. (7)

As circumstances change again, the United States is entering a fifth distinct period of immigration. For the past twenty years, the country has experienced a large influx of legal Asian and both legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants as an unintended consequence of the 1965 amendments. Globalization is placing a premium on skills, cost savings, and innovation. Also, the terrorist attacks in September 2001 and the war on terrorism resulted in greater concerns about and scrutiny of immigration. Finally, the growth of the welfare state and increased economic integration have created interdependencies among people, organizations, and governments so that immigrants create larger costs and benefits to a greater variety of stakeholders than they did in the past.

Effectiveness of U.S. Immigration Policies

There is no ultimate standard by which to judge an immigration policy. Rather, a policy's effectiveness can be judged only by assessing how well it meets the stated or implied objectives (Clarke and Dawson 1999). Although policymakers generally have not stated explicitly the intended outcomes (Borjas 1999a), it is reasonable to suppose that they considered some outcomes congruent with the concerns that stimulated the policy's formulation. The open-immigration policy maintained until the late nineteenth century helped to populate the United States with white people. Between 1800 and 1890, the U.S. population grew from 5.3 million to 62.6 million. Immigration was a major factor in this growth: by 1890, the percentage of foreign born in the U.S. population had risen to 14.77 percent, the highest percentage ever attained. (8)

A presumed goal of the immigration restrictions of the early 1920s was to diminish the problems associated with assimilating immigrants from southern and eastern Europe (Beck 1994). The levels of education in the European source countries rose significantly from 1870 to 1920, and thus the immigrants' skills were rising, making assimilation easier (Hatton and Williamson 1994). One reason for the relative success of assimilation at the time was the strong emphasis placed on it (J. Miller 1998). The prevailing ethos was that immigrants should and could assimilate, as reflected in the 1908 hit play The Melting Pot (J. Miller 1998, 58).

On most counts, U.S. immigration policy from the 1920s to 1965 did not fulfill its explicit or implicit objectives. The policies based on qualitative restrictions were problematic. (9) However, the pause in immigration during the 1920s may have helped those who were here to assimilate more quickly than they would have if a large influx had continued. A notable success was the easing of restrictions in the 1940s, which allowed talented scientists and artists to enter from Europe.

One primary objective of the 1965 Act was to bring the nation's immigration law into line with modern civil rights legislation, so that immigrants would not be discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity or nationality. In general, however, the 1965 Act failed to meet its objectives. The cap of twenty thousand per country and the termination of the quota system were supposed to equalize the distribution of immigrants across the origin countries, but they did not do so. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants (about three-fourths) now come from Asia and Latin America, with the leading source country being Mexico (which contributes one out of six). (10) A second objective of the 1965 Act was to keep the inflow at 290,000 per year, which did not happen. Since 1978, at least 500,000 per year have immigrated legally. The primary reason for these failures of the 1965 Act was the clause that exempted family members from restrictions. This clause produced the unintended consequences of greater overall numbers and numbers exceeding country...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT