Why is chain migration so controversial?

Source：https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-13

---

The American president’s family benefited from it. He himself is less keen

Jan 17th 2018 |  by V.v.B | CHICAGO

“CHAIN MIGRATION”（连锁型迁移）, the process by which American citizens and green-card holders (permanent residents) bring family members to the United States to live, used to be a neutral term. It has, after all, existed since the nation’s founding. Like many Americans, President Donald Trump is the descendant of immigrants who benefited. After Friedrich Trump, Mr Trump’s grandfather, became an American citizen in 1892, he returned to his native Germany to marry Elizabeth Christ, and brought her with him to America. Similarly, Mr Trump’s mother came to the United States from Scotland to join a sister who was already in the country.

But in recent months Mr Trump has used chain migration as a derogatory term. Ever since Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek holder of a green card, killed eight people with a truck in Manhattan in October last year, Mr Trump has lambasted the practice as a loophole in immigration law that terrorists and other evil-doers exploit. Without any evidence, he claims that over 20 people came to America thanks to family connections with Mr Saipov. The president is determined to end the practice. On January 11th his vice-president, Mike Pence, tweeted: “We’re going to BUILD THE WALL. We’re going to END CHAIN MIGRATION. We’re going to END THE VISA LOTTERY PROGRAM and we’re going to address DACA.” The diversity lottery distributes 50,000 visas a year to people from countries such as Uzbekistan that currently have low rates of immigration to America. (Mr Saipov came to America through the scheme.) DACA is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme, launched by the Obama administration, which gives certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in America as minors—the “Dreamers”—a renewable, two-year reprieve from deportation. Mr Trump is planning to wind it down.

Chain migration has also become controversial because it is linked to the wider debate about immigration that is polarising the country. From 1990 to 2015 an average of 1m people became legal residents of America each year, according to the Migration Policy Institute. During the past decade between 60% and 70% of this lawful permanent immigration has been family-based. American citizens, both native and naturalised, can sponsor a spouse, children under 21 and parents (if the citizen is older than 21) for a green card without any numerical restriction. They can also sponsor, subject to annual caps, their adult children (and those children’s spouses), grandchildren and siblings. Permanent residents can sponsor their spouses, minor children and unmarried adult children for green cards, subject to caps. Advocates of the policy say “family reunification” (their preferred term for chain migration) makes for happier and more productive immigrants, who assimilate more easily. Opponents say the practice allows too many extended family members to enter the country.

Chain migration has become a pawn in talks between Republicans and Democrats about the future of DACA. A group of bipartisan senators （两党参议员） said on January 11th that they were optimistic that a permanent solution for about 800,000 DACA recipients could be found. But such hopes dimmed after Mr Trump used derogatory remarks to describe some immigrants' countries of origin. If a solution to the plight of the Dreamers is found, chain migration will almost certainly be restricted. For instance, DACA recipients are unlikely to be allowed to seek green cards for parents who came illegally to America. Depending on what else Mr Trump demands in exchange for a permanent solution, this may be a small price to pay.