The constant influx of immigrants was seen with suspicions as they tried to stretch their share in the host country’s economy which ultimately gave rise to hate sentiments leading to rejection.
American Presidents Compete to Bridle Immigration Influx— the anti-Chinese sentiment grew among the whites, due to which President Chester A. Arthur, a Republican signed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Let’s fast-forward to post-World War II America and its attitude towards immigrants. In 1952, President Truman, a Democrat signed the McCarran-Walter Act and ended policies stemming from the Chinese Exclusion Act which was repealed by Congress in 1943. It also set a quota system for immigrants; however, the quota favored whites.
During his tenure from 1953 to 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican authorised the Border Patrol agents to deal with multiple illegal Mexicans working in the United States and officially termed as [Operation Wetback]. However, he allowed thousands of Hungarians who had failed a revolution against the Soviets, to be refugees in the US in 1960. Five years later in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat signed the Immigration and Naturalisation Act that allowed naturalised American citizens to sponsor relatives to immigrate to the US.
A decade later in 1975, under the rule of Republican President Gerald Ford the Indo-China Migration and Refugee Assistance Act allowed refugees fleeing from South-East Communist countries such as Vietnam and Laos to come to the US. Democrat President Jimmy Carter signed the Refugee Act in 1980 and raised the limit of refugees to 50,000 per year.
Later in 1986, Republican President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which allowed many undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship before 1988. Another Republican President, George H.W. Bush signed an Immigration Act in 1990, that increased the number of immigrants allowed and prioritised educated/skilled workers. In 1994, Democrat President Bill Clinton launched Operation Gatekeeper, to prevent illegal immigration via the US-Mexican border by increasing border security and deterrence. This resulted in the death of multiple immigrants.
Following the tragedy of 9/11 in 2001, another Republican President George W. Bush further tightened border and airport security and replaced the Immigration and Naturalisation Service with the Department of Homeland Security. It deals with all immigration matters and has the authority to detain/deport anyone entering the US with suspected terrorism-related connections. It set the precedence and laws for immigrants have always been stricter since, regardless of the government.
Fast forward to 2017, Republican President Trump put a travel ban on seven countries including five Muslim. Security at the US-Mexico border was tightened in 2018 and he is known for bringing the infamous [Zero Tolerance] policy that allows illegal immigrants to be prosecuted at the border. But later, he signed the executive order to end the family separation of illegally migrating families. As for the asylum seekers, President Trump, disallowed asylum seekers in the US, if they had not applied for it in the transit country, in case, if they were traveling through a third-world country to do it.
The Republicans are not completely anti-immigration; they simply want a limit on the number of immigrants and claim to maintain a legal framework so the people who are legally living in the US are not affected by them
Democrat President Joe Biden reversed many of Trump’s strict policies on immigration in 2021. Multiple immigrant workers were welcomed and many refugees from war-torn Ukraine arrived were allowed. Biden also created a refugee camp for 125,000. However, in regards to immigrants coming through the Mexican border, he brought a new policy to deal with asylum seekers. Those who had not applied for asylum in a third-world country were not allowed to do it in the USA. This was done as Trump’s asylum policy was going to expire.
In the 2024 elections, the Republicans vigorously campaigned against illegal immigration and used propaganda tactics, such as claiming that Haitian immigrants are eating peoples’ pets and Trump made claims such as bringing the [biggest deportation of history]. However, they were not totally against legal migrants, as many legal Mexican Americans supported him, and there were even some Muslim supporters, such as the Mayor of the town of Hamtrack, Michigan, Amer Ghalib, a Yemeni-origin Muslim imam of the mosque who supported President Trump.
This demonstrates that despite stricter policies, the Republicans are not completely anti-immigration; they simply want a limit on the number of immigrants and claim to maintain a legal framework so the people who are legally living in the US are not affected by them. It proves that the US is, indeed a country of immigrants.
Different But Caught in Immigration Bind— Pakistan and the US are different countries. The US has a larger landmass, whilst Pakistan has a small landmass; the US is a developed country and a world superpower whereas Pakistan is an underdeveloped country with a struggling economy. The US, is a modern nation with 247 years of history, whilst Pakistan is only 77 years old. Nevertheless, these two countries have two things in common: a diverse geography and a constant influx of immigrants that has been happening long before since the creation of these nations, which has made the ethnic and cultural diversity as great as the geographical one. In both countries, geographical factors, immigration, and ethnicity have affected their history, culture, politics, and environment to a very large extent. This especially applies to immigration, as it is a key factor for change.
If the country is lucky to have hard-working, intelligent, and productive immigrants, and it has the space to accommodate them, then it is useful, but if the country has no space to accommodate any immigrants, then there is no point for it to be inclusive
We can see that various political conflicts and many other aspects in the US and Pakistan revolve around immigrants, for instance, President Trump’s policies in the US and MQM’s ethnic clashes and the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan. Social issues like illegal supplies of cocaine in the US originating from different Latin American countries and illegal supply of drugs like heroin through Pakistan and opium originating from Afghanistan called for stricter regulations.
Immigrants are Boon and Not Bane— But we must also look at how immigrants have affected these countries positively, as the US got a lot of cheap labor provided by Mexican migrants, intellectuals like Einstein and Oppenheimer coming from Germany) and Industrialists like Elon Musk, the owner of the Tesla car company. Pakistan has businessmen like Agha Hassan Abedi, a banker, intellectuals/writers like Ibn-e- Insha, Anwar Maqsood, and Jaun Elia and scientists like Abdul Qadeer Khan, and philanthropists like Abdul Sattar Edhi and Ramazan Chhipa.
Furthermore, the purpose of the creation of these two countries is tied to immigrants. The US became independent from the British mainly because English, Irish, Dutch, and various other settlers in the colonies of the East Coast wanted to expand their opportunities to earn and not pay taxes. Whereas Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, and if we go back hundreds of years, then the reason that many of the places of modern-day Pakistan gradually became Muslim was due to the Muslim traders and saints who arrived here. Such as Arabs arrived in Sindh before Muhammad bin Qasim as traders lived there long term and many saints who spread the word of God in Punjab and Sindh were born in other areas, such as Data Ganj Baksh of Lahore who came from Ghazna, present-day Afghanistan.
In conclusion, if we look at what is best for a country, then immigration proves to be a double-edged sword. If the country is lucky to have hard-working, intelligent and productive immigrants, and it has the space to accommodate them, then it is useful, but if the country has no space to accommodate any immigrants, then there is no point for it to be inclusive, even if the immigrant is honest and industrious.