Immigration

The United States, by far, attracts more international migrants than any other country, making it “the top destination in the world” for people seeking a new life in a new country. It has been a focal point of emigration and immigration—leaving one country (emigration) and migrating to another one (immigration)—since the very founding of the country, when British colonization of the East Coast of North America led to the formation of the 13 colonies, which became in 1776 the first 13 U.S. states. Seeking opportunity and to escape persecution, poverty, and famine, immigrants have come to America wanting freedom, work, and a new life, and their experiences and dreams have formed an integral part of American history and the American character.[87][88]

This is why the United States is often called “a nation of immigrants” and “a melting pot,” meaning an amalgamation of many cultures. The Statue of Liberty (“Lady Liberty”) honors this tradition as a beacon of hope. The statue on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, in fact, was often the first thing immigrants saw from their boats as they approached America and disembarked at the immigration station at nearby Ellis Island, where immigrants were inspected and officially processed. The statue’s uplifted torch welcomed untold millions of immigrants. and the words of poet Emma Lazarus inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty reinforced the ideal of America as a safe haven for the needy: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”[90][92]

Waves of Immigration

Immigration to America often came in waves. These included the European (mainly British) colonization of the East Coast in the 17th and 18th centuries; the large influx of immigrants from Northern and Western Europe (heavily from Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom) from the 1820s-80s; the large influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (many of them Catholic and Jewish immigrants) from 1880s-1924; Jewish and European refugees escaping Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the ravages of World War II from the 1920s-50s; and since the 1960s, migrants from Mexico and Central and South America.[88][89]

Reactions to Immigration

Americans’ reactions to the these waves of immigration has impacted the American experience as significantly as the immigrants themselves. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in 1798 sought to restrict immigration and deport immigrants out of fear of radical, foreign ideas. Many of the immigrants to the U.S. during the 1880s-1920s came from non-English speaking countries in Southern and Eastern Europe, compared to earlier immigrants from Britain and Northern and Western Europe. They were often seen as alien and “un-American” and faced staunch prejudice and discrimination, which has been characterized as examples of xenophobia (meaning fear and dislike of strangers and foreigners) and nativism (the desire to protect the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants). The U.S. Congress has also passed several restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the National Origins Quota Act of 1924, which severely restricted legal immigration until 1965, when it was repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act.[88]

The recent migrants from Mexico and Central and South America have troubled many U.S. citizens because the immigrants came into the country illegally, without background checks for possible histories of criminality. How to deal with this latest wave of immigration played a critical role in the presidential election of 2024 and the reelection of President Donald Trump. Upon taking office for his second term as president, Trump quickly resurrected the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (one of the four Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798) to justify his deportation of illegal immigrants. His use of these acts for deportations was quickly challenged in court.[91]

“A Path to Citizenship”

Whether the U.S. should offer a “path to citizenship” for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the country has been a hotly debated issue. “Path to citizenship” is a political phrase used by advocates for a special process by which undocumented immigrants can become U.S. citizens. This process may include special requirements (such as fees, background checks, or additional waiting times) beyond those already in place for the naturalization of documented, legal immigrants. Citizenship means the immigrants could receive government benefits (such as Social Security and voting rights), bring family members into the U.S., and be protected from deportation even after committing a crime.[1]

The term “legalization” refers to a different process. Legalization means undocumented immigrants would be allowed to remain in the country legally but would not be allowed citizenship or receive the same rights as U.S. citizens. With legalization, the immigrants would be authorized to work in the U.S., have the ability to legally travel in and out of the country, and would not be subject to deportation for being in the country (though committing certain crimes could lead to deportation). They would not be eligible to vote or to receive government benefits or to bring family members into the country. [1]

Alternatives to citizenship and legalization include the deportation of and civil proceedings against individual or groups of undocumented immigrants. Because being in the U.S. without legal documentation is a civil rather than a criminal offense, criminal proceedings are not an option. [2][3]

A path to citizenship and legalization are sometimes called “amnesty.” Legally, amnesty is “grant[ing] a pardon to those who have committed an offense.” In immigration law, this means “the government forgiving individuals for using forged/false documentation to gain employment in the U.S. and to remain in the country, and would allow illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrant aliens to gain permanent residency in the United States.” Permanent residency could lead to citizenship or another legal status, depending on the immigration action taken by the U.S. federal government. [4]

While a path to citizenship option is often considered a liberal, Democratic Party policy, both Democratic and Republican presidents have promoted, considered, or enacted such policies. Democratic President Jimmy Carter proposed legalization for undocumented immigrants in Aug. 1977, arguably setting the stage for the current debate. The legislation was not supported by the U.S. Congress, but the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy was established “to study and evaluate the existing laws, policies and procedures governing the admission of immigrants and refugees.” The committee submitted the final report to Republican President Ronald Reagan in March 1981. [5][6]

A direct result of the commission’s report was the path-to-citizenship legislation introduced by Senator Alan K. Simpson (R-WY) and Representative Romano L. Mazzoli (D-KY) in 1982. After several revisions of the bill, Reagan signed it into law in Nov. 1986. Called the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, also called the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty), it is widely considered the biggest amnesty in modern American history. The act allowed some undocumented immigrants to apply first for temporary legal status. Once legal status was granted, those immigrants could then apply for lawful permanent residency (a “green card”) and later for citizenship. The law required that the undocumented immigrants had entered the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1982, or be a farm worker with at least 90 days of validated employment in order to embark on the path to citizenship. [6][7][8]

While an Oct. 31, 1986, government memo estimated 2,663,000 undocumented immigrants would be eligible for amnesty under the IRCA, 3,040,475 undocumented immigrants actually applied for temporary legal status via the new law, according to a 2002 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) study. Of those, 2,688,730 (88 percent) received permanent residency, and 889,033 of them (33 percent) had received citizenship by 2001. [9][10]

Undocumented immigrants from Mexico formed the group that most heavily applied for amnesty via the IRCA (2,271,187 people), followed by El Salvador (168,283), Guatemala (71,048), Haiti (60,048), Colombia (34,884), Philippines (29,443), Dominican Republic (28,253), Pakistan (22,534), India (22,085), Peru (19,810), Jamaica (19,260), Honduras (18,169), Poland (17,673), Nicaragua (16,775), Ecuador (16,375), Nigeria (16,266), Iran (15,306), Canada (11,724), Korea (11,512), and China (11,338). [9]

In 1987, following a failed amendment to the IRCA, Reagan’s Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner, Alan C. Nelson, announced the “Family Fairness” policy that protected from deportation the minor children of undocumented parents covered by the IRCA amnesty, as well as some spouses who met “compelling or humanitarian factors.” Republican President George H.W. Bush expanded upon this new policy, protecting from deportation undocumented family members pursuing the legalization process and allowing them to work if they were in the U.S. before the 1986 passage of the IRCA. These provisions were part of the Immigration Act of 1990.  [1][12][13][14]

With these additional paths to legal citizenship now in place for immigrants, the federal government turned to the continuing problem of border enforcement and illegal immigration. In 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-sponsored Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made the deportation of undocumented immigrants easier, made more undocumented immigrants eligible for deportation, and made becoming a legal resident or citizen more difficult. As a result of this new law, deportations increased to levels not seen since the Great Depression. However, the undocumented immigrant population also surged, which some experts attribute to increased border security that hindered travel in and out of the country, forcing immigrants in the country to stay. [15]

The population increase presented an issue for Republican President George W. Bush, whose 2007 plan for immigration reform was adamantly opposed to an “automatic path to citizenship or any other form of amnesty.” Bush’s plan leaned heavily on assimilating immigrants and called for undocumented immigrants to be “brought out of the shadows” so they could pay “a substantial penalty.” They would also be required to “learn English, pay their taxes, pass a background check, and hold a job for a number of years” before being eligible for legalization, at which point they would go to the “back of the line” for citizenship consideration behind everyone who had legally applied for citizenship, including refugees. But too few Senate Republicans supported the reform, and the initiative died. [16][17]

Although often considered a policy of President Barack Obama, the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act was actually introduced in the U.S. Senate on Aug. 1, 2001, by Orrin Hatch (R-UT), during the presidency of Geoge W. Bush. Several versions of the bill had been introduced in Congress since 2001, with bipartisan support, but none passed both houses. The most recent Senate version (S.264 -– Dream Act of 2021) and House version (H.R.6 -– American Dream and Promise Act of 2021) would have allowed undocumented immigrants who (1) were brought to the U.S. as children and have lived in the U.S. for four years continuously; (2) are high school graduates or GED recipients or enrolled in high school or a GED program; and (3) have no criminal convictions to remain in the country. The immigrants would then be able to apply for lawful permanent residence (a “green card”) on a conditional basis after 8 years (in the Senate bill) or 10 years (House bill) and after completing two years of college in good standing or graduating with a college degree, completing two years of military service, or three years of work (working at least 75 percent of the time). [18][19][20]

The amnesty debate had resurfaced in 2012 with the enactment of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a selective enforcement of immigration laws that some compare to Reagan and Bush’s “Family Fairness” policies. An executive order signed by Democratic President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012, DACA prevented the deportation of some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and allowed them to get work permits. The order did not, however, offer legalization or a path to citizenship, whereas the DREAM Act would have. [21][22]

In 2017, Republican President Donald Trump announced that his administration would end the DACA program in fulfillment of a campaign promise. But his attempt to kill the law was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, which stated that the administration did not offer “a reasoned explanation for its action.” A second attempt to kill DACA died in 2020 when Democrat Joe Biden won the presidency and asked the Department of Homeland Security to “preserve and fortify DACA.” The Biden administration then attempted to expand DACA, presenting Dreamers (as beneficiaries of DACA are called) with additional rights in the Build Back Better Act, which passed the House in 2021 but died in the Senate. On Jan. 17, 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that DACA was unlawful. The judge stayed the decision, allowing DACA recipients to continue renewing their status; however, new DACA applications were not allowed.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][79]

An Oct. 10, 2024, poll found 58 percent of Americans favored a path to citizenship over mass deportations, with Democrats more heavily in favor (75 percent) than Republicans (45 percent). [81]

For more detail on U.S. immigration history since 1607, and for the latest updates to U.S. immigration policy, see ProCon’s historical timeline.

So, should the U.S. government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? Explore the debate below.