tv Lectures in History Immigration Policy Since 1965 CSPAN September 9, 2018 12:00am-1:41am EDT
, i imagined am i going to leave -- am i going to live to see the next day. that is going through my mind. every -- at any point has a moment alone with me and i make it through whatever happens when i get home and talk , lord knows what she is going to do. , sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> next on lectures in history, university of texas at austin professor matalin -- matalin , talks about the 1965 immigration act. the professor describes how the number and country of origin has changed over the last 50 years. this class is about 90 minutes. prof. hsu: good morning.
welcome to our fourth morning of the workshop on immigration history. glad to see you all here again. today we are going to talk about the immigration law that has been in place over half a century now, it has had a transformative impact on american society. the basic principles for immigration regulation laid out in these laws are the ones still with us today. now, to remind you, the last major set of immigration restrictions prior to the 1965 act were legislated in 1952. as we recall, that act retained the national origins quota system. you can see from the summary of the national quotas allocated, all countries in the world got an immigration quota. this was an advance from the previous legislation. as you can see, certain countries were greatly favored. northern and western europe
particularly still retained over 85% of the immigration quotas. persons from asia could immigrate, but as you can see, they were highly restricted. asians were also the only group still tracked by race in the asian pacific triangle. addedcarran walter act certain changes in terms of preferences, we will talk about that more today. the mccarran walker act introduced preference for people who have special skills in employment. these are becoming identified as priorities and alternative ways to think of people apart from race and national origin. this system goes into operation, it is immediately subject to protest.
the mccarran walter act was vetoed by president truman. there was a big hurdle in terms of american foreign relations. all presidents, truman, eisenhower, kennedy, and then lbj, all wanted immigration reform. here we have a report issued by the truman administration, whom we shall welcome. here we have a publication by john f. kennedy, titled a nation of immigrants. many people believe it was ghost authored by oscar hamlin, pressing for the idea of the united states as a country that can welcome and include and integrate a multitude of immigrant populations. really pressing for immigration reform. however, there is staunch opposition. it is increasingly minority
opposition, but because of the way the committee structure in congress works, it took a tremendous upswell for it to pass. 1965, we see lbj signing the new immigration act. he is right under the statue of liberty. he is surrounded, you can see a couple of the kennedy brothers. this is lady bird johnson. and this is in the wake of the assassination of president kennedy. immigration reform was a cause that kennedy had championed during his career as a senator, and when he became president. but it took lbj with his sexy in -- with his savvy in congress, and the upswell of civil rights pressures to get the legislation through. these are the terms of the 1965 immigration act.
as we go through this, consider for yourself whether this is in fact egalitarian legislation. one of the pressures is we need to remove overt discrimination from immigration legislation. you consider the ways in which these rules and processes for who can immigrate legally to the united states will have an impact. there are 20,000 annual caps for eastern hemisphere countries, now applied to all countries. it's now up to 25,000 per country. every country gets the same cap. there is a preference system. there is a set of priorities. it has to do, 75% of immigrant visas go to family.
20% based on employment, and 5% allocated to refugees. note this. a lot of times people have the conception that people are here, they did not have authorization and the complaint is, you should have just gotten in line. but one of the things we need to discuss is that for most people in the world, there is no line. you only get to immigrate if you have relatives that are close enough relatives, a spouse, children, parents, and siblings of a u.s. citizen. that is it for the family category. you have to have employment certifiable by the bureau of labor as needed in the u.s., and an employer in the u.s. willing to file the paperwork on your behalf and wait for you to go through the process in order to hire you. there is a line for investors.
this is the most expeditious line, if you have $1 million. or if you qualify to be considered a refugee by the united states government. this is the first time, in 1965, there will be a numeric path to immigration in the western hemisphere. if you think about it, it is a form of equality. you are treating all countries the same, but because of the historic relationships between the united states and its nearest neighbors, there's been a lot of back-and-forth, the sharing of space, the sharing of communities and economies. as we saw yesterday with the talk, it generates a set of challenges and problems. you have a law suddenly in place but that doesn't mean people will abruptly change their behaviors.
we have in 1980, a refugee act that will raise admission caps for refugees, there is more capacity to receive refugees. but there will also start to be a series of immigration acts we will talk about later that are intended to address the enforcement problems. this is the 1986 immigration reform and control act, chiefly. but there are other acts that modify and adjusted the immigration law to be more accommodating of actual immigration flows. one of the chief acts is legislated in 1990. enacts the h one b temporary visa program for skilled workers. under the employment preferences, they cannot bring in enough skilled people. this is expanded through the h-1b.
also in that is the diversity lottery program. some countries don't use all of their visas. this program was intended to reallocate visas to countries which were underrepresented in terms of immigration or where there was a need for more visas. this initial incarnation of the diversity lottery program was actually intended to benefit irish and italians. i will explain this. this is generally available online. you can go find it, there are no restrictions on accessing and using it. but we can play this game. what part of legal immigration don't you understand? let's see if we would qualify to immigrate to the united states. this sets it out very clearly.
this is to underscore that for many people, there is no line. here is the generic applicant, and there are key questions. do you have family in the u.s.? is your relative a permanent citizen, is your your family a lawful resident? you have to be the parent, spouse, or lawful child. if not, you have to go down to here. yes, congratulations, you have found a way to come in. then you apply and you basically get in line. total time to immigrate to become a citizen, best case, 6-7 years. if you have adult children and siblings, you go down here. the wait time depends. currently, the biggest backlog and the longest waiting times for legal immigration to the united states, these are for people whose immigrant visas have been approved but because of the annual cap, the wait
times for some countries are 10 years or more. the countries with the biggest backlogs are mexico, china, india, and the philippines. if we try to do this on the basis of employment, are you skilled? this varies by department of labor certification. it tends to focus on people who are highly educated and people who are in stem fields. i did find out if you are trained chinese cook, you qualify. if you are a trained french baker or a trained japanese sushi chef, you qualify. it is selective in terms of what getting knowledges. one route, can you prove you are a genius? [laughter] prof. hsu: we are talking about people like albert einstein,
people with exceptional skills. this is the shortest pathway. the investor pathway is also one of the quickest. but to invest, you have to participate in a upper -- in an approved investment program, which creates a certain number of jobs. but this is the quickest pathway. if you are going to do the regular employment route, mostly you have to have a college degree or some sort of certification that verifies your special skill. you have to be able to prove this. if you do, you have to have a job offer. you have to have an employer willing to process the paperwork for you. are they willing to do all of this? it involves legal fees. i have many contacts in austin who do immigration law and it takes a long time, it is very complicated.
the employer has to be willing to wait for you to get processed and then hire you. so you can also have a long wait. this is it. unless you are coming as a refugee and get acknowledged as a refugee, that many people apply to be a refugee, have accepted refugee status, but if you exceed the cap, and it is even lower, you were not coming -- you are not coming to the united states. it is a very narrow door. if you have questions, you need to get the microphone. we come back again to this chart. it shows us the impact of the national quota systems, which are running roughly through 1960, very successful in keeping numbers are down. then the 1960 act comes into play, it still imposes numeric
quotas, but the door is opened up. it in fact had many unanticipated outcomes. one of the big unanticipated outcomes was in terms of who actually came, wanted to immigrate to the united states after the mid-1960's. if you think about the 1965 immigration act, 75% of the immigration visas are supposed to go to family preference. u.s. citizens bringing over family members. if you are a member of congress, who do you think is most likely to come in the greatest numbers? we are talking at a time when the u.s. population was approximately 85% euro american. so you can make a projection, and in fact, this was an explicit promise offered up by ted kennedy, who continued to
advocate for this cause that his brother had believed in. it was promised by emanuel cellar, a longtime advocate of immigration reform. we can change the laws to be less discriminatory, but were not going to change the composition of people who actually immigrate. so congress in this, they did not really understand how immigration works. by the 1960's, some programs the u.s. had implemented in places like western europe and japan to help them recover from world war ii, we have the marshal program, they did have been extremely successful. people in europe did not have that much incentive to immigrate to the united states. we have diminishing numbers of immigrants from europe. but, people in parts of the world that had previously been largely shut out, people in
asia, people in central and south america, start integrating more. but the pathway that is open to them is through the employment category. it produces a phenomenon of what we call [indiscernible] once people are here through the family preference system, they start bringing in more and more family members because they are motivated by the comparative economic conditions. the united states is so much more prosperous. even if you have a college degree in say library science, and the only gig you can get going in the u.s. is to run a gas station, that is still going to earn you a higher income, greater social stability, part of a democratic political country. many people from unstable countries economically and politically are motivated to come to the united states. but much of that immigration is
not coming from europe. the exceptions to that were in fact ireland and italy whose economies were still struggling. this was the movie you saw yesterday. the young woman is still desperately poor. tot economy will take longer develop and become more prosperous. the problem with 1965 is that by this time, you had all of this diminished immigration across the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. many irish and italians would like to immigrate, but they don't qualify. because they don't have the right employment criteria, they also don't have close enough relatives to apply for them. there is this pressure, but legally they cannot be admitted. congress undertakes to fix the
situation by passing the 1990 immigration act, including the diversity lottery visa program. that explicitly, ted kennedy again was an advocate for this, that is included. you are not changing the overall cap but you are making sure visas can go to certain populations whose immigration you want to facilitate. as it happened, in the 1990's, this is when ireland's economy picks up and italy's economy picks up, and so not that many irish and italians have come. some key beneficiaries of the diversity lottery visas have been from africa and central america. these are some of the changes that have happened. since the 1960's, literally the
face of the united states has become transformed. we have much more in the way of an asian population, much more in the way of not just mexican, we will have a mexican population coming in and the prior practices of circular migration become more difficult. the pressure is to get citizenship. if you're going to try to stay in the united states, you need to try to remain. if you can try to get citizenship and bring over the rest of your family members. we also have across the 1970's and 1980's, increasing immigration from further south in central america and latin america. these numbers also will be going up for a variety of reasons. here we have, these graphs have
come from the congressional researcher of specialization immigration. she has generously shared them. we have another graph showing us the leading countries sending immigrants in certain key decades. in the 1900s, there was a crisis of immigration. too many immigrations and coming from places that we are concerned they are not assimilating. coming in great numbers, and from places that don't resonate with the earlier immigration, chiefly from places like england, germany, france, scandinavia. it has become italy, russia, and austria-hungary.
we have another shift in the 1920's and 1930's when the national quotas go into effect. it sort of keeps immigration in terms of composition in place. after 1965, you can see there has been a transformation. one of our closest neighbors is the key source of immigration. it is no longer canada as much. canada and the united states are roughly equivalent in terms of political systems and economics. the pressure is from mexico, where there is such a disparity in terms of our economies, but also significant immigration from asia and elsewhere in the american hemisphere. these patterns have continued. into the present.
this is some of our challenges with regard to how immigration policy is functioning. this chart gives us another sense of tracking scale since 1900. it is tracking legal permanent resident admissions, people who arrive with immigrant visas. it's only people who arrive with immigrant visas. these are the people we decided because we think they should be able to settle permanently. and eventually gaining u.s. citizenship. this is the respective numbers. as you can see presently, we are coming to the same peaks we had in the 1900s. if we feel a sense of crisis now because of the scale of
immigration, it mirrors what was happening about a century ago. there are two big differences, one is that now, the key sources of immigration are different, but also numbers are comparable in terms of the percentage of foreign-born, it was higher here. here we have this addition, a set of regularization of status as a result for the immigration reform and control act. what happens in the 1980's is that there is a recognition that we continue to have a lot of immigration. now it has become outside of the law, from mexico, but also other parts of the american hemisphere.
people are doing what they have been doing, working, participating in communities, having families. now they are subject being really outside of the law. we are having this problem of unauthorized immigrant population. there are serious conversations, i will say it is important to remember in the 1980's, he was -- it was actually the last time we had more of a bipartisan consensus on how to handle these sets of problems. we will talk more about the immigration and perform control act, passed in 1986. one of the things it did, it had three main goals, one of the goals was to acknowledge that we have this long-term resident population, they have lives here in a working here, let us undertake to allow those who do not have criminal records to regularize their status. this is when we get this bump.
there was approximately 1.6 million people who had entered prior, i think it is 1982, who were allowed to regularize their status. we also had about 1.1 million allowed to come in as agricultural workers and recognizing these are people we have recruited, we need their labor, they were also allowed to regularize their status and gain permanent standing. this is the big bump. but then it did not resolve many of the problems. another key thing that happens is there is alongside that an effort to ratchet up resources to border control and enforcement, the policing function. this was the attempt to sort of make sure the immigration regulations are carried out effectively.
this is also to help us understand who is immigrating to the united states with immigrant visas, legal permanent residents admitted. this goes with the preference system and gives you a sense of the kind of categories. respectively, the character of the immigrant population separate from countries of origin. the big chunk actually is immediate relatives. these are the spouses, minor children. they are non-quota, they are not counted in the quota system. as long as you have this very close relationship to a u.s. citizen, you can immigrate alongside them. this is not subject to numeric controls. but next you have the family preferences, which then go to siblings, chiefly adult children. this is also a significant
percentage but it is capped . employment is the next significant chunk, also subject to control. there is also the refugees and asylum category. refugees are subject to an annual cap but not asylees. just applyosed to and the case is evaluated. if you qualify, you are supposed to be able to stay. we have, this is the numbers coming through the diversity lottery program, you can see it is not that significant. then, all others. we can see the regularization of status, this bump, but one of the things we think happened in the aftermath is people regularize their status and then applied for relatives. this gives us a sense of who is
coming and how they are coming. those able to come legally. i'm going to give you some more information about people arriving through the different pathways. family unification. historically, from the beginning of when the united states starts to seriously trying to regulate immigration, family unity has always been the chief priority. even when we go back to the chinese expulsion loss, if you had legal right to enter the u.s. and were a man, you have the right to bring your family with you. if you qualified as a chinese merchant, you could bring your family. if you qualified as a student, you could bring your family with you. this has historically always been a protected status.
if we go back and look -- let's just look here. it is in the 1920's, before we have systematic immigration regulation, the majority of immigrants to the u.s. are chiefly working aged men. they come, they work, will make decisions about whether to stay or not, but most of them are coming for economic purposes. this is why we have regularly high levels of migration circulation. people come and go back. but when the united states becomes more serious about regulating immigration in the 1920's, and this is applying quotas to europe, if people immigrate, more and more they do so with their families. this is also because under the quota system, you actually get an immigrant visa, you are allowed to bring your family with you. they all go under that one in
admission. now we have much more immigration from families, and it's only in the 1920's where the immigrants who come to the united states, we start to get gender parity. a lot of times we did not place caps on family immigration. does this make sense? this carries on with 1952 and in 1965. if you are immediate family members, we will not count you numerically against a cap. chain migration has also been the most common pattern for immigration. it is most common and it makes sense. if you've made the decision to immigrate and stay someplace, you want to be with family
members. particularly your spouse and children. but you do want to be in a complete family unit. now, here this again is a graph, we going from 1952, when this category is being written into the law explicitly and starting to be tracked. this is overall numbers of as immediateating relatives of u.s. citizens. here are spouses and children. orphans, international adoptions. also parents of u.s. citizens. this is sort of, this helps us see change over time, this is in bulk numbers, it doesn't show as percentages of overall immigration. this data has been broken down by region.
starting in 1952, a significant but steady level from europe, but real growth in two parts of the world, asia is the green and north america is the red. this would be chiefly canada, and i think caribbean would be included. more and more from south america. this may also include mexico and central america. parents of u.s. citizens by region. asians seem more year to bring -- hearing to bring over their parents as well. but you can see, in terms of the act will, it is not that high, but in terms of based on this
crude category by region, who is availing themselves of this possible immigration pathway. this is to give a more up-to-date and detailed sense of who is coming in under what status. in 2011, we had 1.1 million entering legal residents. next we have family preferences, we have refugees and asylum, employment. as we think about this, when we think about the push for immigration reform, which i think people generally agree is needed, and there is a significant group that thinks we need to lower the overall numbers of immigrants again. but then we will then have to
think about what categories of legal immigrants would we cut? how can we reduce the numbers? i show you this in order to help you process through, these are the kinds of choices and priorities people are trying, we are having protracted struggles about this. another thing, what we talked about before, immigration restriction is difficult to pass. it is difficult to get enough consensus around specific conditions because people feel very strongly about what kinds of immigrants, what kinds of relationships should be encouraged and preserved. it's also about projecting into our future. whom we admit now shape the future of the country. we have all kinds of, it is a set of incredibly difficult choices. this is 4.4 million approved
pending, and this is important to remember. there are all of these people who have applied, their status has been verified, they are legally eligible to emigrate, but there is a numeric cap and they are in line. these are the people in line, and these are their categories. right now, one of the pushes is to reduce what is called chain migration, which is actually family migration. they are taking aim at this group, u.s. siblings. is a significant chunk. the tie is not as close but it is a significant family type. if we decide that we need to cut, is this what we will cuts. there is somewhat more of a consensus about employment-based immigration, especially since we are going by the highly skilled. legal immigration status, this
is to give you a sense of process. the department of labor will set forth the categories of who qualifies as highly skilled, these are people in these kinds of fields, they are the ones we want to bring into the united states. you also have to demonstrate you are not displacing an american worker and have your employer willing to file the paperwork, which means you're always going to have to hire a lawyer. this is costly and time-consuming. members of professions, artists and scientists of ability. or unskilled workers that there is a shortage in the united states. it is mostly skilled workers. there will be some variation. you can also come in at an
-- as an investor. let's look at the numbers. this is coming after the 1962 immigration acts. the first preference was for people coming through skilled employment. here we have the numbers after 1965, increase in terms of professional employment. i think many people would say in this regard, the 1965 immigration act has been very successful. in enabling the united states to bring in people with college degrees trained in particular fields. i think this is one area of consensus that if we are going to have an emphasis in our immigration regulation, this is the kind of immigrant we want to bring in more of. employment-based immigrants by region. it is significant, steady
numbers from europe, big increase from asia. if you are from a nation country -- and asian country and able to have higher education, this is pretty much the only way to get to the united states. i will say, and it is something to track, there is a difference between having the education credential and being able to find employment in that area. we find a lot of people who have college degrees who are not competitive in the primary employment market and end up in small businesses or starting their own firms. this is one of the reasons we have this disproportionate percentage of immigrant entrepreneurs. lots of asians, more and more from the western hemisphere. we have this steady and increasing presence of immigration from africa.
employment-based immigrants by professions. this repeats what is already visibly true in the united states. contributes to the image of the model minority group, preponderantly in white-collar or technical fields, stem fields. sort of overall education attainment levels, very very high. guess what? this can also be part of policy. if we think about immigration regulation and combine it with international education policies, we can see there is a set of strategies to this kind of outcome. we look at dr. production in the united states universities, extending from 1922 the present. -- from the 1920's to the present. we know there are a lot of
persons of asian ancestry on university campuses. a certain percentage are asian-american, more and more, there are more international asian students. this has been true since the early 20th century. a lot of international students were in graduate programs. also significant numbers from the western hemisphere. we had talked about this, i don't think i have shown you this before. international education programs, starting from the early 20th century, were one of the strategies the united states government starts pursuing systematically to try to cultivate influence overseas. if you are educating people who you can project will be influential persons in their home countries, it makes sense to educate them in the united states.
there is a contradiction between having discriminatory immigration laws, when it comes to students, students will come, be influenced, and leave. they are not immigrants. there is a big payoff, it is a relatively cheap way to have influence overseas. this has been a growing set of programs, growing numbers of international students coming to the united states. what this graph captures is key countries that have sent international students to the united states. this is from the research for my second book. one of the things we can see of particular interest to me, even though we have chinese exclusion laws, chinese are always among the top one or two countries to send students to the united states. it goes between india and china, but now china far outstrips
-- far out ships india in terms of the students coming to this country. a big change will happen with world war ii. there will be a realization, a growing realization that we are educating all of these very bright people in useful fields that we are not so committed to the idea that they will go away, we are willing and eager to have some of them stay and become americans and participate in the united states. i showed you that image of the two physicists who came to the united states for education, we go into the cold war, and suddenly it seemed like an extremely good idea to not force them to go back to communist china but stay in the united states. this is where they both have the bulk of their careers. we are laying the groundwork for remaking.
this is also to deemphasize what had previously been the emphasis on race and national origins in terms of immigration policy. we need an immigration policy that helps us to bring in the that willer persons bring positive change to the world, and we can't keep out those that will be burdens on the rest of us. this is to get smarter on immigration policy even as we move some unacceptable discrimination. this is a snapshot. this is data from 2013-2014. if you have been on a university cap this, you have seen this and experience this. the numbers of chinese students, international students is more than the combined total of the others. a lot of students coming from india and a lot from china.
one of the big sources of change in this group, undergraduate students. more and more undergraduate students coming from china. part of this is associated with the economic downturn that began in 2008, 2009. also the retreat of public funding of higher education institutions. and so becoming more and more dependent on the higher tuitions paid by international students. i talked to a colleague who is an administrator at a community college in seattle, and what she explained is that we need these chinese students to come so that we can pay for the programs for all of the other students. it has gone from being a way to cold to the influence overseas and building international relations to a fiscal necessity for many institutions.
we have this major shift. with the h-1b visa program, there's a pathway for people who arrive to study for undergraduate but also graduate to get a job in the united states and remain here at least as a temporary skilled worker. this is making this, this is talking about some of the relationship between higher education programs and employment and immigration. here we have in 2010, ethnic asian students, we don't really have the desegregated information. 25% of u.s. research doctorates. a huge chunk in certain stem fields. engineering, math, computer science, life sciences.
i will also comment to you that it is not that there is a natural affinity between asians and the sciences. back to the 1950's, you have oral testimony, we can discern the patterns that taiwanese students knew that if they were admitted to a school in the united states and could get employment, they could stay in the united states. the fields they were most likely to accomplish this were science and engineering. a very practical set of considerations in terms of choosing the field to study. i also know this from family history on my father's side, for ur siblings all majored in the sciences. my grandfather, who was a confucian scholar, make sure they studied the sciences. he was not letting them go into the humanities. and they all immigrated.
now, we can see this reflected through the relationship to employment. about half of all indian immigrants receiving green cards in 2011 did so through employer sponsorship. many people can come over, get jobs coming over from india, but many can also get jobs because they are in graduate school in the united states. 70% of adults aged foreign-born indian americans have college degrees. the national average is 25%, 30%. this is more than double. percentage of recent indian
degrees hitolding 80% in 2010. this is how you know the immigration law is working. an increasing trajectory. it is also a skimming mechanism. if you compare against the general indian population, only 10% have an opportunity to attend some sort of coursework post high school. this can vary greatly in terms of quality. we are really skimming the elite of the indian population. i think there is another difference that you are not necessarily educated in english, but many of the indian students attending elite institutions will already be fully conversant in english. you surmount the language barrier. in 2011, almost 60% of h-1b visa recipients were born in india. that visa program is set out
there as an additional set of visas. the numbers vary year-to-year. congress has the capacity to vary the cap. the language is neutral. we just want better capacity to bring in more highly skilled workers that are needed in particular economic sectors. most of the visas are allocated to i.t. companies. 60% are from india. there is something going on there, i don't think we have time to go into it, but there are certain ways in which certain kinds of preferences and systems get embedded into law and practice. we have already looked at this chart. i think what i have been talking about in terms of the employment preferences and how they have worked, sort of flesh out this relationship between high
achievement among certain immigrant populations. this is a lot of times, through the high attainment of asian americans, it's used as an example that the united states is functioning as a multiracial democracy. but it has also shaped, the high levels of attainment are because of the coming as immigrants. not because they have been in the united states and given an opportunity to get educated and trained and enter into certain fields. if you weigh that against the attainment by african-americans, you can see that. we will talk more about that. this is data. the pew foundation produce a lot of quantitative data and reporting.
one of the things i wanted to illustrate here, of the largely immigrant populations, which sort of reflect the model minority stereotype most intensively, but the ways in which this is a product of immigration is that in 1960, we had such a tiny population of indians in the united states. the bulk of the population, which has continued to double every decade going back to 1990, the bulk of the population is screened by immigration preferences. this is overwhelmingly an immigrant population, disproportionally chosen by the employment preferences. this is the power of immigration policy. you can do this with your immigration laws. it doesn't tell you what to do, sort of a long-standing minority population, how to bring them up, but there are other things
you can do in terms of bringing in people from other countries. this is why it is criticized. we don't have that much time, but this shows us 1967, people who applied to change their student visas. the highest numbers were coming from asia, right after the law changes. china, which was taiwan were severe sufferers of brain drain . india and korea would be the next highest place at this point in time. i will go through this quickly. this is just to give us a set of ways in which migration patterns can change. this tracks high levels of taiwanese students going
overseas, high levels of taiwanese students in science programs, and they don't really return. they stay in the united states. at one juncture, it was up to the 1970's, 90% or more stay in the united states. they are mostly coming to the united states but something happens in the 1970's, because by the 1970's, taiwan's economy has started to develop and it is moving into an advanced economy stage. part of it has to do with the trickle of students that go back help to set taiwan on this path toward development, another significant component is that the united states, between 1950 and 1965, investing a lot of capital in taiwanese agriculture, and it is sending experts over to advise taiwan on infrastructure. the united states contributed to
their stabilization. in the 1950's, 1960's, there were not that many jobs for highly trained technicians, engineers, and scientists. by the 1970's, it has changed. there is more incentive for people to go back. this is something to think about in terms of, if we are thinking about how to manage immigration flows, and if we help certain countries to advance economically, we can start managing that immigration better. in the case of taiwan. there have been other places. japan, and we talked about the european countries with the n the u.s. has done
this in the past successfully. a not going to go into these, that is sort of captured right now taiwan is a leading , manufacturer of sort -- of certain components in the i.t. industry. a lot of research facilities and manufacturing firms are based in this area. we have a new transnational phenomenon. what happens to many of the scientists and technicians as they start working in silicon valley. they establish a sense of the field, they are participating in cutting edge research, working with leading edge companies. they also get an understanding of how to raise capital. at a certain juncture they realize it makes sense to relocate some of the manufacturing to taiwan. they are in a better position to do this because they already have these experiences in california. they actually are key actors in the globalization of the united states and the taiwan economy.
we see this phenomenon a lot with indian-american engineers. there is a fairly integrated relationship between silicon valley and computer i.t. businesses in india. this is another reason why you have this disproportionate number of the visas going to indian workers. there is a way in which there is a very close integration between immigration policy and certain kinds of economic development. refugee and asylee. this has been at the forefront of recent events. this is just to mark out the difference between refugees and asylum-seekers. to refugees, the key difference is refugees will apply for refugee status and then try to apply for refugee immigrant visa
while they are away from the united dates. -- united states. many of the refugees are in camps. one of the key aspects in being a refugee is you are facing persecution and unsafe conditions in your homeland, you cannot go back. but refugees, before they come to the united states, have already been vetted and authorized. they already have an immigrant visa. as i said before, you can go through all of these processes, but if the united states has hit the annual cap of how many refugees they will admit, you have to wait. asylum-seekers, i will add this, you can see the way the united states gets to control refugee admissions. you just have that number. we are only going to admit this number of refugees. one of the tensions and concerns around asylum-seekers is that
you don't have the same control. the international law and u.s. law is that asylum-seekers can come to the united states and request asylum. their case is supposed to be evaluated. this is the law. but the united states can't control them, the number that apply, you are just supposed to take them in and evaluate their cases and make a decision, yes or no. this also goes to the level of resources needed to actually evaluate those cases. they have to be adjudicated. there are all of these kinds of competing concerns. law is the international and these are sort of what is required of the united states. the united states canada fights on set of criteria regarding who is considered an asylum seeker
or not. there is an executive order in place which says that women who are fleeing domestic abuse should be considered as asylum-seekers. this is being changed. the government is supposed to follow the principle of non-resettlement, which is that you can't force people to go back. if you force them to go back, they are in danger. we know some people have been forced to go back and in the past have been killed. this is another part of international law. so, this tracks the numbers and places of origin of refugees since 1975, and we will have a big surge in terms of southeast asian refugees from vietnam, but also cambodia and laos.