Suresh Venkataraman
October 16, 2026
The United States’ immigration system is shooting itself in the foot and blaming the gun. The issue of undocumented migration has been a hot-button issue within policy circles in the United States for quite some time. The situation has only escalated in recent years due to economic turmoil and stratification. As the demand for cheap agricultural labor grows internally and the socioeconomic realities of immigrants become abysmal, the most efficient way to reduce illegal immigration to the United States is to reverse certain policies of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, eliminating country-based visa caps and reorganizing visa preference structures.
Migratory patterns, both legal and illegal, have been shaped by a variety of extrinsic factors, including socioeconomic security, political freedom, and high-paying jobs. Oftentimes, American public opinion shapes the topic of illegal immigration as a modern problem that has persisted as the result of a failed administration rather than acknowledging the broader legislative history surrounding migration. While there is no clearly articulated causal explanation for illegal immigration in the modern framework, the creation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 led to the United States effectively switching goalposts and limiting the number of obtainable visas overnight. This created thousands of immigrants with no other feasible option for legal pathways. Historically,the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was received as a transformative policy that served as a neat complement to the Civil Rights Movement. While this policy technically eliminated immigration quotas based on national origin and made the immigration system more equal across nations, it ultimately increased illegal migration and created practical gaps in the immigration framework. Additionally, the implementation of strict quota regulations and hemispherical caps combined with the termination of the Bracero guest worker program, has led to a massive influx of immigration [1].
To better understand the motivations behind this policy and the ramifications associated with it, it is important to first come to terms with its context. The 1960s was a time period marked by civil discourse and change. The most common explanation for the United States’ behavior in the 1960s was the country’s desire to portray itself as free and equal to bolster its standing amid the growing tension between the Eastern and Western Blocs during the Cold War. That, along with growing discontent among African-Americans regarding their conscriptions to the United States during the Second World War as well as the United States’ involvement in Korea and Vietnam, aided in the revolutionary nature that contextualizes the 60s [2]. As discontent grew between racial groups domestically, there was a call to generalize the drive for equality as it pertained to migrants and refugees. As Civil Rights revolutionaries Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and other revolutionaries emerged, so too did Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, and Larry Itliong to fight their respective battles of social injustice and institutional racism. The combination of US perception motivators and the growing factions advocating for social change manifested in the introduction of Hart-Celler, which can be considered one of the most influential pieces of immigration legislation due to its impact on modern immigration patterns [3].
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA) can be characterized by four main points:
- Abolition of National Quotas
- Preference for Skills-Based Labor
- Numerical (Hemispherical) Gaps
- Family Reunification
Hart-Celler set up a system in which 120,000 visas were allocated to the Western Hemisphere, and 170,000 visas were allocated to the Eastern Hemisphere. Included in this section was an annual limit of 20,000 visa allocations per country. Initially, this fixed allocation only applied to the Eastern Hemisphere. Shortly after, the Western Hemisphere was included. Already, there is a problem within this numerical disparity. Before the passage of Hart-Celler, there were an average of 35,000 – 50,000 immigrants from Mexico, not to mention the more than 450,000+ temporary guest workers as part of the Bracero program. This far exceeded the annual cap of 20,000 immigrants that was placed during Hart-Celler, creating an immigration shock. The end of the Bracero program combined with the provisions of this Act caused illegal immigration to rampantly rise as the demand for cheap agricultural labor grew [4].
It can also be found that the abolition of the nationality-based quotas and the subsequent creation of the 20,000 immigrant cap resulted in a large pool of “wasted visas.”. This can be attributed to the development of the Eastern Hemisphere at an exceptionally large rate. After World War 2, European and Asian powers began to dramatically shift their demographics and grow their economies, leading to a decrease in immigration to the United States as their countries developed. However, during this time, countries such as Great Britain began accumulating a lot of excess visas due to a relatively low desire for emigration. An investigation conducted by the Library of Congress during this time illustrated how countries with the largest immigration quotas, namely Britain and Ireland, acquired approximately 65,000 visas but only utilized around 35,000 of them in 1964. The already existing problem with wasted visas, and the 20,000 annual country cap implemented in 1977, aided tremendously in the rise of illegal immigration [5]. The need for cheap labor, combined with the sharp decrease in the amount of visa allocations for Western Hemisphere immigrants, made illegal immigration the only feasible way for citizens of Latin American countries to immigrate [6].
Additionally, the abolition of country-based quotas directly contributed to the tremendous visa backlogs faced as a result of the uniform 20,000 immigrant cap for every country. This led to disparities between countries that had tremendous immigration pools, versus those that do not. (i.e., Mexico and the United Kingdom, respectively.
It is important to note that the actual numerical immigration trend did not change as a result of this act; however, the legal pathway for entry became significantly more narrow due to these hemispherical-based caps, and the termination of guest worker programs. For a country like Mexico, which sent hundreds of thousands of immigrants to the United States for work, this sudden 20,000-person country limit led to a logistical nightmare and left immigrants with no familial or advanced skills-based connection to the United States, with no alternative [7]. This new policy, combined with the aforementioned visa backlog due to high demand,left the vast majority of Hispanic immigrants facing a choice between an unrealistic wait time or illegal immigration, which was oftentimes mutually preferable to both the immigrants and their respective employers within the United States.
Additionally, the third core tenet of family reunification is instrumental in increasing the motivations for illegal immigration, mainly due to the disparity between familial preferences. This is outlined within a seven-tiered preference system within the (INA)of 1965 [8]:
1st Preference: Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens.
2nd Preference: Spouses and unmarried children of permanent resident aliens (green card holders).
3rd Preference: Professionals and scientists with exceptional ability.
4th Preference: Married children of U.S. citizens.
5th Preference: Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
6th Preference: Skilled and unskilled workers in fields where U.S. labor was short.
7th Preference: Refugees facing persecution
The preference system is overwhelmingly geared toward family reunification and immigrants that possess “exceptional ability”, which led to a bottleneck for the majority of Latin-American immigrants that were formerly guest workers, or agricultural sector immigrants. Due to the desire for cheap labor and the economic motivations for immigrants, illegal immigration was further incentivized. This is because immigrants in the non-skills-based sectors were often sidelined for the other visa preferences at the introduction of this bill, creating extremely long wait times for entry. This left the only feasible option for immigration undocumented means. This is heavily supported by Ramon Gutierrez, a renowned historian from the University of Chicago, who states “a rank-order set of preferences…was established, thus allowing the emigration first of unmarried children of American citizens, the spouses and children of legal residents, professionals with exemplary skills, the married children of American citizens, the siblings of American citizens… and skilled and unskilled workers needed by particular industries” [9]. The bill’s prioritization of exceptional ability and family reunification, along with the termination of the Bracero Program, greatly disincentivized legal immigration for Latin Americans, which at the time made up the largest ethnic group that wanted to immigrate to the United States. The extremely high demand for Latin American immigrants, combined with the priority shift away from unskilled laborers, inadvertently put Latin Americans at a disadvantage for legal immigration, and therefore incentivized immigration by illegal means.
Ultimately, if we are to come remotely close to having a practical and equitable immigration system, there must be extreme trimmings to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since the introduction of the 20,000 visa cap limit in 1968 for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 1976 for countries in the Western Hemisphere, an exorbitant number of visas have been wasted, and combined with the systemic disadvantage within the preference structure, has made it virtually impossible for many Latin-American immigrants to enter the United States legally [10]. The 20,000 cap must be eliminated from this policy if we are to have any chance of solving Hispanic migration backlogs and subsequently illegal immigration. Additionally, there should be an increase in demand for unskilled laborers, as approximately 40 percent of immigrants in the United States already hold integral blue-collar positions in construction, agriculture, and other trades [11].
For far too long, American media has maintained a demeaning view of illegal immigration, often portraying illegal immigrants as freeloaders who are simply too impatient to go through the legal framework to obtain permanent residency. However, the reality is that the immigration system, after the introduction of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, presented policy inequities that directly influenced the influx of illegal immigration. As the demand for cheap unskilled labor remains, the best way to decrease illegal immigration is by getting rid of the country visa cap and allocating more visas towards unskilled labor. American policymakers must take responsibility for the gaps in immigration policy instead of blaming an entire cohort of the American population for their failure to navigate an impossible system.
Works Cited
[1] “Research Guides: A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United States: 1942: Bracero Program.” 1942: Bracero Program – A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United States – Research Guides at Library of Congress. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program.
[2] U.S. Department of State. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917-72PubDipv06/d131#fn:1.7.4.4.406.18.2.
[3] Barber, Rebekah. “How the Civil Rights Movement Opened the Door to Immigrants of Color.” Facing South. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://www.facingsouth.org/2017/02/how-civil-rights-movement-opened-door-immigrants-color .
[4] Massey, Douglas S., and Karen A. Pren. “Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from Latin America.” NLM, 2012. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3407978/
[5] “U.S. Immigration Law and Policy, 1952-1979 .” Committee on the Judiciary. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754078041195.
[6] “Legal Immigration to the United States: National Quotas & America’s Immigration System.” National Immigration Forum, January 31, 2024. https://forumtogether.org/article/legal-immigration-to-the-united-states-national-quotas-americas-immigration-system/.
[7] Massey, Douglas S., and Karen A. Pren. “Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from Latin America.” NLM, 2012. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3407978/
[8]“Legal Immigration to the United States: National Quotas & America’s Immigration System.” National Immigration Forum, January 31, 2024. https://forumtogether.org/article/legal-immigration-to-the-united-states-national-quotas-americas-immigration-system/.
[9] Gutiérrez, Ramón. “Mexican Immigration to the United States | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History | Oxford Academic.” Oxford Academic. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/61644/chapter/539878492.
[10] Riosmena, Fernando. “Policy Shocks: On the Legal Auspices of Latin American Migration to the United States.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 2010. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3172205/.
[11]“Employed People by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 20, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.