United States Senate
Immigration Reform for the United States
St. John's Preparatory School • Danvers, Massachusetts • 10 December 2016
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
1
Letter From The Chair
Hello Delegates,
My name is Ted Moskal, I am a Junior at St John's Prep, and I will be serving as your chair for the
US Senate meeting on immigration reform. This is my second year as a member of the Model UN
Club. Since Sophomore year, I have attended various conferences, and I am looking forward to
working with all of you this December. Hopefully we can engage in a meaningful discussion about
immigration reform, and learn more about the issue at SJP MUN XI. After you receive this paper, I
encourage each one of you not only to research the history and points of conflict in this issue, but also
to research your particular state's needs and goals relative to the issue of immigration reform. Please
understand that you will be representing the interests of your particular state, not the political party
with which the senators of your state are associated. Be sure to think critically about the history and
specific views of your state on this issue, and consider the steps you will need to take in order to create
a successful resolution. I wish you the best of luck in your preparations. If you have any questions, do
not hesitate to email me.
Good luck,
Ted Moskal '18
[email protected] Chair, US Senate Meeting on Immigration Reform, SJPMUN XI
Committee Description
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
2
Since its first session in 1789, the United States Senate has functioned with the goal of
accurately representing the needs of the American people through a system of representative
democracy. Over the course of American history, the Senate has sought to protect the rights of
individual states, and to protect minority opinions through a system of equal representation for each
state.
This specialized committee is a highly modified representation of the U.S. Senate. There will
be one senator per state. Senators are not expected to represent an actual senator from the state they are
given, nor a specific party, but rather the needs of the individuals, businesses, and public sector
interests that make up their constituency. Voting and bloc positions should be based on your individual
state’s needs, i.e. that your constituents represent a large rural or urban population, a particular socioeconomic range, or demographic.
We will follow the standing rules of the US Senate (see here) unless otherwise specified herein.
Senators may draft as many bills as deemed to be necessary, but the goal of the committee is
comprehensive immigration reform legislation, contained in a small number of bills. Bills must be
passed by a two thirds majority of the senators present. It is our hope that this format will allow you to
fully explore the problem at hand.
Statement of the Problem
The current US immigration policy fails to provide a feasible path to citizenship for most
immigrants, while the violent and impoverished conditions of many of their countries of origin still
continue to drive them into the US. The US government can neither protect the rights of this stream of
undocumented immigrants nor hold them accountable to the law, which has led to a population of
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
3
immigrants who are unable to reach their full potential as citizens. This dilemma can often have
unintended effects on the economy, which create negative attitudes towards both documented and
undocumented immigrants, reinforcing racial and social divisions among Americans. Although some
communities and states may experience higher expenses due to these immigrants, on a national scale
the US realizes a net benefit. However, this reality is obscured because of their undocumented status,
resulting in negative attitudes towards both documented and undocumented immigrants, and
reinforcing racial and social divisions among Americans.
These divisions have raised a multitude of emotional, moral, and logistical arguments over the
presence of undocumented immigrants in the US. One of the largest impediments to effective political
discussion on the topic of immigration is the misuse of these three types of arguments in improper
context. For example, person A might argue that the US has a moral duty to increase its immigration
cap, while person B might argue that logistically, the economy will suffer from raising the cap. While
both of these arguments are valid, neither really address the other argument on a similar level. As a
solution, person A might bring up statistics about how immigrants benefit the economy, or person B
might argue that the US has a moral duty to protect its own citizens before citizens of another nation. I
encourage all delegates to take advantage of this wide variety of arguments, but make sure to be aware
of the proper use of each type of argument.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that over 12 million undocumented immigrants
reside in the United States States today (Camarota). However, contrary to popular belief, the
undocumented immigrant population as a percentage of total population has actually declined since
2007 (Camarota). Violence and poverty in many Latin American nations leads immigrants to come to
the United States, looking for work, and 98% were part of the paid workforce in 2014 (Gusmano). The
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
4
language barrier, economic inequality, as well as many other factors have created especially
concentrated populations of undocumented immigrants in the four states of California, Texas, Florida,
and New York, where nearly half the population of undocumented immigrants resides. (Gusmano). As
of 2013, Mexican immigrants made up the largest share of the US documented immigrant population
at 11.5 million out of the total 42 million immigrants living in the US, with Chinese and Indian
immigrants at 2.3 and 2 million respectively (Zong and Batalova). For more demographic information
regarding US immigrants, visit (here).
The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States” (US Constitution). However, the process of US immigration and
naturalization policy is left to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants citizenship
status to potential immigrants based on possession of skills valuable to the economy and family
members in the US, with a national annual cap of 675,000 permanent immigrants (This does not apply
to refugees or temporary workers) (Cortright). Possession of relatives in the US can be a crucial factor
in attaining a visa, as the number of immigrant visas available for direct family members such as
children or spouses is unlimited, and immigrant visas for family members such as brothers or adult
children are capped at a lofty 480,000, annually (Cortright). Critics of this so called “chain migration”
argue that it creates endless chains of family members inviting family members, which are beyond
government control. Others argue that family based immigration gives new citizens the automatic
support system of a family unit, allowing them to be more productive, while lowering their chances of
resorting to criminal activity.
Under the policies created in the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, (not the later 1965 act
of the same name), immigration is regulated at the Federal level, with Congress writing laws for
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
5
immigration and the Executive Branch enforcing these laws. The Federal government’s absolute
jurisdiction over immigration has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, using the
Supremacy Clause of the constitution, which gives Federal laws jurisdictional authority over State laws
in the event of a conflict (US Constitution, Article VI). However, in reality, States such as Arizona and
Indiana are currently attempting to pass legislation challenging the Federal interpretation of the 14th
amendment, which states that children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the US are
automatically granted citizenship (Geller). Furthermore, States such as Arizona, Oklahoma, and Utah
have directly defied Federal authority by ordering police directives to check the immigration status of
anyone stopped by an officer, requiring photo ID for voting, and ordering tougher employment
standards, all of which disproportionately affect undocumented immigrants (Geller). While the States
argue that these directives are simply a matter of law enforcement, pro immigrant groups such as the
Center for American Progress argue that these State directives not only defy Federal law, but also
institutionalize racial profiling (Lach).
Legislation such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA] program, the temporary
agricultural worker program, and the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors [DREAM]
act have created certain “sublevels” of immigrants, including deferred immigrants, DREAMers and
temporary workers. Due to contested opinions about the benefit of undocumented immigrants on the
economy, many states refuse to provide services such as health care, driver's licenses, or in-state tuition
for public universities for these deferred action immigrants, DREAMers, temporary agricultural
workers, and other documented immigrants without citizenship, as well as the estimated 12 million
undocumented immigrants in the US (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL]). Currently,
all undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights as of the 1886 court case: Yick Wo v. Hopkins
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
6
(US Supreme Court). However, these rights often go unrecognized due to the fact that undocumented
immigrants fail to come forth to the authorities out of fear of deportation.
The social and economic effects of both documented and undocumented immigrants are still
highly disputed, and statistically unclear. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office states that
in general, undocumented immigrants have a net cost on the budgets of states and towns, but the effect
on a Federal level has not been explored, and the CBO readily admits that its studies are prone to
considerable error, and the effect should be researched more thoroughly (CBO). In the absence of
conclusive data about this issue, many political figures warn that offering amnesty or a path to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants will increase crime and drugs, while others argue that
allowing undocumented immigrants to become full citizens will increase their economic stability, and
make them less likely to resort to criminal activity. Some groups argue that undocumented immigrants
hurt the nation’s well-being by using public works but not paying taxes, while others argue that many
undocumented workers benefit the nation by paying into social security when they take a job with a
false social security number, but never receive the benefits (Gusmano). In addition, the huge numbers
of undocumented immigrants and temporary agricultural workers often experience inhumane working
conditions, and drive down the wages of documented workers, because employers often hire
undocumented workers at much lower costs than documented workers, who are protected by minimum
wage and labor laws.
However, the popular belief that immigrants “take our jobs” may not be grounded in reality. In
2011, the state of Alabama enacted HB56, a law which imposed harsher punishments against
undocumented immigrant workers, including criminalizing the failure to register one’s immigration
status, and drove large numbers of undocumented immigrants out of Alabama (Alabama State
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
7
Legislature). Contrary to the expectations of lawmakers, this legislation made no significant change in
the state’s atrocious 18.2% unemployment rate, as the minimum wage, manual/agricultural labor jobs
which had previously been filled by undocumented immigrants, remained unoccupied (Dwoskin). Due
to some combination of pride, work ethic, and incentives, US citizens simply refused to fill these
vacant jobs, and Alabama’s economy suffered significantly as tomatoes and other crops went unpicked.
Another contentious topic is the subject of foreign remittances. According to the Social
Contract Press, in 2009, US immigrants sent 48 billion dollars back to their home countries, through
banks, credit unions, and post offices, none of which was subject to taxes or tariffs of any kind (Elbel).
This amount is greater than the total funds the US spends on development assistance for foreign
nations (Elbel). The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform argues that by sending money out of
the country, immigrants decrease their own consumer spending, which depresses the economy at the
expense of stimulating foreign economies with influxes of cash, even calling the use of remittances “a
non-sanctioned transfer of wealth that is based on a fundamental violation of America’s immigration
and employment laws” (Bolton). However, other groups argue that by stimulating the economies of the
home countries of immigrants, remittances help to reduce the violence and poverty that drive
undocumented immigrants to the US in the first place.
The Pew Research Center predicts that in 50 years, based on population growth trends, if our
current immigration policy continues, out of the projected 441 million people living in the United
States, 78 million will be immigrants and 81 million will be people born in the U.S. to immigrant
parents (Passel and Cohn). Many political groups use this figure as a fear mongering tactic to create
paranoia around the changing demographics of the U.S, while others see it as a natural progression of a
nation of immigrants. Regardless of partisan positions, the current immigration system must be
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
8
changed in order to create a healthy flow of immigrants, strong borders, and a chance for all Americans
to prosper. The future of the United States will be greatly influenced by the immigration legislation of
today. President Bill Clinton once described the immigration dilemma by saying, “We are a nation of
immigrants… But we are also a nation of laws” (Clinton). Although the social and economic effects of
both legal and illegal immigration are still highly unclear and disputed, today, the United States is
faced with the challenge of reforming its immigration system to address these issues, as well as giving
immigrants a chance to thrive as US citizens.
History of the Problem
Historically, The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. About 12,000 years
ago, America’s first immigrants crossed the Bering Strait from Asia to Alaska, and descended into what
is now the United States. During the colonial period, the North American region experienced a massive
unregulated influx of culturally diverse groups, due to economic incentives, religious freedom, and the
slave trade. In his second letter of the series, "Letters from an American Farmer," St. John de
Crevecoeur expressed the diversity of the American colonies by writing, “I could point out to you a
family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French
woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations” (Crevecoeur 3).
Even in those times, colonists living in America often felt animosity towards newer groups of
immigrants. In response to an influx of German immigrants to a town in Pennsylvania, Benjamin
Franklin argued, “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant stupid sort of their own
nation… Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens?" (Franklin).
After the establishment of the United States immigration policy was left relatively unregulated, and the
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
9
Federal government generally left immigration decisions up to the states, not even appointing a Federal
commissioner for immigration until 1864 (Cohn). However, a growing concern regarding the
immigration of “undesirable” immigrants led to the first major immigration law in 1875, which banned
the entry of prostitutes and convicts into the nation (Cohn). In response to a wave of anti-Chinese
sentiment in the 1800s, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion act later prohibited the immigration of all Chinese
laborers due to the concern that, “the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good
order of certain localities within the territory thereof” (Cohn).
This pattern of racially-based immigration laws continued in 1921 with the establishment of
immigration quotas according to nationality in the Emergency Quota Act, during a period when certain
nativist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the American Protective Association, and the Immigration
Restriction League sought to uphold American purity by denouncing un-American lifestyles (Potok).
After the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was established, only three percent of the amount of
immigrants that had been living in the United States in 1910 were allowed to enter the country (Cohn).
In 1965, this system of national quotas and restrictions was finally abolished with the Immigration and
Nationality Act, reflecting a more racially tolerant society, as well as shifting the source of most US
immigrants from Europe to Latin America and Asia. From 1960 to 1980, the immigrants from Europe
or Canada fell from 84% to 42% of the total immigrant population, with Mexico overtaking Germany
as the largest source of immigrants (FitzGerald and Cook-Martin). This act also provided exemptions
from national quotas for immediate family members of citizens, stating, “The immediate relatives…
who are otherwise qualified for admission as immigrants shall be admitted as such, without regard to
the numerical limitations in this act” (US Congress).
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
10
By 1986, the Reagan administration attempted to get a fresh start on the growing issue of
illegal immigration from Mexico by creating the status of “temporary agricultural worker,” with H-2A
visas, and granting permanent residency to unauthorized immigrant workers who had lived in the US
since 1982 (US Dept of Homeland Security). The H-2A visa program was widely criticized by
conservatives for driving down wages of American farm workers, and by liberals for the inhumane
conditions experienced by many temporary workers. Under the presidency of Bill Clinton, the United
States sought to protect American jobs by increasing border security and deporting tens of thousands of
undocumented immigrants. In his book, Between Hope and History, President Bill Clinton described
the nation’s policies by stating: “Since 1992, we have increased our Border patrol by over 35%;
developed underground sensors, infrared night scopes and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences;
and installed massive amounts of new lighting… Since 1993, we have removed 30,000 undocumented
workers from jobs across the country” (Clinton 134).
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 14 million new immigrants (both
documented and undocumented) have entered the country from 2000 to 2010 (10-12 million estimated
to be undocumented) (Camarota). Over the same time period, the US also experienced 0% net job
growth (Bureau of Labor Statistics), leading to a rise in the popular belief that immigrants take the jobs
of hardworking US citizens. Recently, President Barack Obama has attempted and failed to pass a
comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress. In response, he has issued a series of
executive orders to give residential status and work permits to up to 5 million people who entered the
U.S. illegally as children or who have children who are American citizens (Federal Register). However,
the constitutionality of these orders has been questioned and the implementation of these programs has
been delayed. President Obama’s DREAM act also provides a path to citizenship for immigrants who
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
11
attend college or serve in the military (Federal Register). For a timeline of US immigration legislation,
visit (here) Over the course of American history, the US Government and the American people have
constantly struggled with being a nation of immigrants as well as a nation of laws. Due to the these
factors, the issue of immigration reform is one of the most pressing issues that the US faces today.
Questions to Consider
-
How can the US sustain a healthy flow of immigration while still maintaining national security
and stopping the spread of crime and the drug trade, which many groups associate with
immigration?
-
Should the spread of crime and drugs be associated with immigration?
-
Should there be a national cap for immigration?
-
Should the rules regarding temporary agricultural workers be reformed, and should they be
given a possible path to citizenship?
-
What should the policy be regarding:
a) Undocumented family members of documented citizens?
b) immigrants who were illegally brought to the US as children?
-
What rights should undocumented and deferred immigrants be given, and what services should
all states provide for all residents, regardless of immigration status?
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
12
-
What efforts, if any, should be taken to secure US borders in order to decrease illegal
immigration?
Bloc Positions (Only includes states with clear positions)
States with highest populations of undocumented immigrants (as a percentage of total population)
-
California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Illinois
States with lowest populations of undocumented immigrants (as a percentage of total population)n
-
West Virginia, Montana, Missouri, Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
States bordering Mexico
-
New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, California
States with harsh anti-immigrant laws
-
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia
Appendix
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
13
Works Cited
Alabama, Legislature, House of Representatives. House Bill. 2011. 2011 Legislature, House Bill 56.
Bolton, Nancy. Remittances - a Transfer of Wealth out of America. CAIRCO, 11 Aug. 2012. Colorado
Alliance for Immigration Reform. Accessed 6 July 2016.
Camarota, Steven A. New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015. June 2016. Center for
Immigration Studies, cis.org/New-Data-Immigration-Surged-in-2014-and-2015. Accessed 8
July 2016.
Clinton, Bill. Between Hope and History. Random House, 1996.
Clinton, Bill. "1996 State of the Union Speech." 104th US Congress Joint Session, 23 Jan. 1996, U.S.
Capitol, Washington D.C. Address.
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
14
Cohn, D'Vera. Future Immigration Will Change the Face of America by 2065. Pew Research Center, 5
Oct. 2015. Pew Research Center. Accessed 6 July 2016.
Cohn, D'vera. The Nation’s Immigration Laws, 1920 to Today. Pew Research Center, 28 Sept. 2015.
Pew Research Center.
Congressional Budget Office. The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and
Local Governments. By Peter R. Orszag, US Government Printing Office, Dec. 2007. Accessed
7 July 2016.
Cortright, Kevin, editor. "Important Factors Affecting Immigration." HG.org, HG Legal Resources, 4
Apr. 2009. Accessed 8 July 2016.
Dept of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services. H-2A Temporary Agricultural
Workers. US Government Printing Office.
Dwoskin, Elizabeth. "Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs." Bloomberg Businessweek, 11 Nov. 11.
Accessed 8 July 2016.
Elbel, Fred. Remittances - a Massive Transfer of Wealth. Social Contract Press, 2012. The Social
Contract Press. Accessed 7 July 2016.
FitzGerald, David S., and David Cook Martin. The Geopolitical Origins of the U.S. Immigration Act of
1965. MPI, 5 Feb. 2015. Migration Policy Institute. Accessed 6 July 2016.
Franklin, Benjamin. Letter to Peter Collinson. 9 May 1753. Founders Online, National Archives.
Accessed 6 July 2016.
Geller, Alison. "Arizona Lawmakers Challenge 14th Amendment." The Sundial, 1 Mar. 2011.
Sundial.edu. Accessed 7 July 2016.
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
15
Gusmano, Michael K. Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Demographics and
Socioeconomic Status. The Hastings Center, 14 Feb. 2012. Undocumented Patients. Accessed 6
July 2016.
Lach, Alex. Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Law Does More Harm than Good. Center for American
Progress, 25 June 2012. Americanprogress.org. Accessed 7 July 2016.
Potok, Mark. "The 'Patriot' Movement Explodes." The Intelligence Report, 1 Mar. 2012. Accessed 7
July 2016.
St. John De Crèvecoeur, J. Hector, and Warren Barton Blake. Letters
from an American Farmer. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1912. Print.
United States, Congress, House. Immigration and Nationality Act. Government Printing Office, 1965.
Uwb.edu, U of Washington-Bothell Library. 89th Congress, House Bill 2580. Accessed 7 July
2016.
US Supreme Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins. 10 May 1886. Cornell.edu, Cornell University. 356 US.
Accessed 8 July 2016.
US Constitution. Amendment XIV.
US Constitution. Art. VI, sec. 1.
Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the
United States. Migration Policy Institute, 14 Apr. 2016. Migration Policy Institute. Accessed 7
July 2016.
SENATE • IMMIGRATION
16