Chain Migration refers to the endless and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members.
Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life.
Chain Migration refers to the endless and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members.
Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life.
Chain Migration is about family reunification beyond the nuclear family. Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. But since then, immigrants can also send for their siblings, parents and adult children. These non-nuclear family members actually get precedence over an immigrant’s nuclear family. This ill-conceived system also creates incentives for illegal immigration because adult relatives of legal residents are known to overstay their visas (becoming illegal aliens) in hopes of becoming legal immigrants. Moreover, since hundreds of millions of people in the world have a relative in the U.S., the migration chain can eventually reach them all.
The claim that chain migration is about “family reunification” ignores the fact that each immigrant who comes to the U.S. “disunites” another family by leaving some new relatives behind. If a person really wants to live near his/her extended family, he/she should remain in the country where that extended family lives. Except for the very small percentage of each year's newcomers who are refugees, nobody is forcing immigrants to leave their families.
On Feb. 4, 2009, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced the Nuclear Family Priority Act (H.R. 878). The bill would eliminate the extended family visa categories (e.g., married sons and daughters of citizens, etc.), thus ending “chain migration” as recommended by the bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission in 1997. Chain migration is the process where seemingly endless “chains” of foreign nationals are allowed to immigrate to the United States, since our laws allow citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their non-nuclear, adult family members. It is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple since the 1960s. Furthermore, H.R.878 would reduce the annual number of family-preference immigrant visas available by 111,800.
The bill had 19 original cosponsors.
Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:52 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Congressmen Who...
Dear Congressman Gingrey,
NumbersUSA is proud to endorse H.R. 878 and to salute you for your leadership in once again trying to enact what we believe is the single most important change needed in our immigration policies.
The Nuclear Family Priority Act would put the emphasis of family immigration where it belongs – on spouses and minor children.By ending chain migration of adult relatives and in-laws, H.R. 878 would bring about more economic justice to America’s most vulnerable citizens, a better quality of life to Americans whose daily lives are becoming too congested and regimented, and more opportunity for our grandchildren to live in individual liberty and environmental sustainability.
In introducing H.R. 878, you are operating in the spirit of bi-partisanship and compassionate change that seemed to be high on the wish list of Americans last fall. Ending chain migration was one of the top recommendations of Democratic leader Barbara Jordan when she chaired the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. She concluded that chain migration serves no compelling national interest while harming the Americans who most need our help.
While ending chain migration would directly reduce overall immigration by around 1.2 million a decade, it would eventually and indirectly lead to an even larger decline in other categories.
The creation of the chain migration categories has been the primary reason total authorized immigration has skyrocketed from 2.5 million per decade to 10 million.
Chain migration was recklessly put into our immigration system 50 years ago. At first glance it seems relatively harmless as it allows immigrants to bring in not only their spouse and minor children but also their brothers, sisters and adult children. But that starts a chain that cannot be stopped. Each of those adult relatives can bring in his/her spouse, leading to the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. All of that leads to the immigration of the Anchor Immigrant’s cousins, aunts, uncles and the in-laws of the in-laws of the in-laws.
The result of all this uncontrolled migration is that at age 233, our nation is undergoing its biggest population explosion ever, leading to massive loss of natural habitat and farmland, and to flooding American occupations with excess labor that increases unemployment and depresses wages.
Thank you again for leading on this long-overdue step while declining to raise the greencards in any other category.
Sincerely,
Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Stats - Thursday, May 8, 2008

chain migration table
Fact Sheets - Monday, July 6, 2009
Congressional Testimony - Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Articles - Wednesday, February 1, 2006
In the News - Wednesday, May 13, 2009
In the News - Thursday, April 16, 2009
Legislative Analysis - Friday, September 5, 2008
Congressional Testimony - Wednesday, June 3, 2009