quota system definition us history

quota system definition us history

The Evolution and Impact of Quota Systems in US History

1. Introduction to Quota Systems

There are two major types of quotas: static and dynamic. The former allocate specific amounts of a valuable good or service to a population, while the latter determine a formula that establishes amounts of a good or service that is available to an unknown population of entrants. Interest in regulating the activities of others is prima facie evidence that a particular activity is valuable. The regulated population that competes for this activity is then likely to argue that they really do not represent the “others” and to take advantage of this insight by e.g. changing their name, their method of entry to avoid detection by regulatory authorities, or both. If the regulated activity is perceived to be valuable, those already benefiting from it are also likely to exert pressure on the government to establish a preferred quota by describing past and perhaps future economic and social chaos that would result from unregulated opening of the gates. Quotas serve the members of the quota-communities well, but they are counterproductive for the entire political community.

Quotas are a common method of regulating access to valuable goods or services by establishing a predetermined maximum number of allottees. Restrictions on immigration, for example, took the form of quotas. This has been true in virtually all periods in US history and the types of immigrants covered, as well as the countries considered desirable for them to come from, have changed in ways that can potentially affect the willingness to apply the quota. At the same time, those subject to the quotas have also sought to have them defined narrowly and changes in their terminology. Different legislative tactics and administrative rules have been enormously important over time, as has successful lobbying of Congress. Framing the discussions of immigration to depict some would-be entrants as more valuable to existing residents than others would also help to maintain the very low quotas that vary the entrants by type.

2. The Origins and Development of Quota Systems in US History

The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 did significant harm to the quota system. Although its “progressive” elements, in 90% headline-wise, they look very good, and there are no real satisfactions just that under 90% some groups, “inexigent categories”, have been in many cases left out even if they would be impacted positively.

The quota system also served to advance US foreign policy goals. At the time, the countries’ racial demographics were incorporated into the calculation of quotas, and such demographics bear some relationship – direct or indirect – to the foreign policy goals.

The first quota system limiting the number of newcomers was the Page Law of 1875, which excluded from the United States “any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country.” The Immigration Act of 1924 created the national origins system, which has engendered most of the complicated mathematical calculations with which we have been dealing this afternoon. The national origins system for the first time established “quota offsets” orients of immigrants, with the total number of worldwide immigrants cut from almost 900,000 in 1920 down to about 150,000 under the new system.

3. The Impact of Quota Systems on Immigration and Diversity

In 1920, the volume of low-quotas was also approved by legislators who wanted to restrict the number of workers and create labor shortages to pay higher wages to workers or reduce the supply of labor. Both exclusive and exclusive objectives of the Anglo-Saxon model are unrelated to the number of immigrants who can live together in a family environment, although they can be considered as support. For newcomers to Australia, the post-1920 quota is based not only on an explicit, although sometimes unstated and indirect, racial or ethno-religious exclusion, but also on a specific concern for ensuring privileged opportunities and wages for workers in advancing industries or in declining industries. – 1920, increase the price. Employers rely on declining industries, such as textiles or other traditional manufacturing. As a result, many groups of people who will become citizens and be relaxed or based on ambiguous cultural factors and integration characteristics have benefited from exemptions, while people with different cultures have not.

Before the 1965 Act, family unification with European peoples could happen with a lower number. In essence, only European peoples, those who could not come before February 1965, are separated from the unified family. This argument has several flaws. First, the exclusion of Eastern European peoples from the quota in 1920 is explicitly based on a prejudice against Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, and Jews, which is explicitly rejected by current laws that guarantee family unification in Vietnam over Cuba, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, and Indonesia, as well as many other Muslim countries.

The current system represents a rejection of the “Northern European” bias embedded in the early 1920 system. Conversely, advocates of family reunification or related reunification consistently justify the bias that some people perceive as currently inherent in the system due to the fact that the prior bias was in favor of discriminatory objectives against which the post-1965 system was reacting. This characterization of the migration laws has specific concrete implications.

4. Challenges and Controversies Surrounding Quota Systems

While successful in acknowledging the negative impact of biased practices and situations, quota systems are widely regarded and criticized for their shorter-term policies regarding race/gender discrepancies. Opponents allege these programs are mere surface remedies in an attempt to allege genuine, global diversity. Over time, concerns surrounding the inherent prejudice in actual implementation of quota systems have become glaringly evident, as well as patterns of over-emphasizing token numerical output at the expense of an individual’s true dynamic. The issue of quotas merely addressing symptoms and not factors resulting in educational/occupational race/gender discrepancies also looms large. Lastly, these programs are also reduced to a key individual vs. collective opponent conundrum, giving rise to various degrees of resistance and conflict. In the next section, I will discuss these challenges more closely.

5. Conclusion: Lessons Learned and Future Implications

This process of change in hidden quotas illustrates other fundamental issues. It should be clear that hidden quotas derive their value from being hidden – from the fact that the differential treatment is not widely known. Information about credit allocation is valuable, but regulations that openly state that some should receive loans on easier terms will have little chance of approval. Subsidies of the kind created by hidden quotas must be secret, known only to potential beneficiaries. Given the almost inherently sordid nature of the process of allocating such benefits, it is not surprising that the benefits are, and always have been, less effectively allocated than might otherwise have been possible, even in the absence of the difficulties associated with hidden quotas. Any benefits should be used carefully. Any general institution – explicit or hidden – that creates such bureaucratic conflicts should be handled cautiously if information about subsidies is the primary motivation for such programs.

The experience of the last 200 years with quotas suggests some lessons and offers some hints about future success. First, such policies can be effective, but only in the face of substantial enforcement activity and then only with substantial costs in terms of broader policy effectiveness. Over time, hidden quotas have gradually become less effective; enforcement costs have soared and organizational interests have changed. More generally, issues that are enforced will be changed, and the changes and the enforcement process will often be quite ugly. The law of unintended consequences will be in full operation.