CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2020
| Author | Lazarescu, Paul Manuel |
|---|---|
| Title | Understanding the Implications of the Hart-Celler Act |
| Summary | The Hart-Celler Act, formally known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, has had a thought-provokingly stellar impact on U.S. immigration. This act eliminated discrimination against certain ethnic groups that had persisted since the Immigration Act of 1924 which established the National Origins Formula. Under the National Origins Formula, immigration quotas were put into place in order to limit the number of immigrants from regions of the world that would negatively alter the ethnic distribution of the United States. The era within which the Hart-Celler Act was passed was one of a great change in the psyche of the U.S. demos towards a more liberal, global way of thinking by removing these quotas and creating a better system through which residency could be acquired. The changing of times and inability to address it since, however, has led to immigration becoming a forefront of political debate in the United States today. This has culminated in the presidential campaign and subsequent election of Donald J. Trump, whose primary campaign issue revolved around racially charged sentiments and the problems of immigration. My aim here is to assess, from relevant data and evidence, the impact of the Hart-Celler Act by examining a) how it improved or faulted as legislation upon its predecessor – via reallocation of immigration slots from Northern Europe to 3rd world inhabitants or the creation of chain migration – and b) the economic and social consequences that have occurred in the fifty years following. I shall follow this up by developing a normative scale upon which to judge the competing immigration theories, which is succeeded by taking a look at philosophical literature in search of providing a clearer picture regarding the moral debate surrounding immigration today. I conclude a) that Congress passed a law improving on many of the shortcomings of its predecessor, though it has not been spared criticism on pragmatic grounds; and b) that the legislative changes cultivated fairly positive economic consequences. Additionally, I assert that sole adherence to either theory of immigration is too narrow in approaching the problem of reform and that collaborative measures that are understanding of both sides’ interpretations of justice is the most suitable path forward. |
| Supervisor | Miklosi, Zoltan |
| Department | Political Science MA |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2020/lazarescu_paul.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University