Family Reunification and the Limits of Immigration Reform: Impact and Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act

When and how do movements influence policy change? We examine the dynamics leading up to Kennedy's decision to pursue major civil rights legislation in 1963. This marked a key turning point in shifting the executive branch from a timid and gradualist approach. Although it is widely taken for granted that the civil rights movement propelled this shift, how the movement mattered is less clear. While most protest targeted local economic actors, movement influence was exerted at the national level on political actors. Thus, movement influence was indirect. We focus on the relationship between local movement efforts to desegregate public accommodations (restaurants, movie theaters, hotels, etc.) and federal responses to movement demands. Although exchanges between movement actors and the federal government took place throughout the period, the logic of federal response evolved as political actors sought strategies to minimize racial conflict. Specifically, the Kennedy administration shifted to a dual strategy. First, the Department of Justice attempted to promote "voluntary" desegregation by working with executives of national companies and civic groups. Second, administration officials worked with these same groups to build support for major legislation among key interest groups. This shift toward a more assertive and proactive intervention in civil rights stands in contrast to the pessimism regarding the prospects for federal policy only a few months earlier. We examine the logic of this response including the impact of civil rights protest on the administration's policy proposals. 4

Section: Movements and The Policy Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article is part of a special issue entitled “Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1960s Civil Rights Laws.” Other authors include Bonastia (), C. Lee (), Massey (), McAdam (), Pettit and Sykes (), Santoro (), Valdez (), and Whitlinger ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Protest and Federal Policy: The Impact of the Civil Rights Movement on the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Andrews¹,

Gaby²

2015

“… This article is part of a special issue entitled, “Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1960s Civil Rights Laws.” Other authors include Andrews and Gaby (), Bonastia (), Lee (), Massey (), McAdam (), Santoro (), Valdez (), and Whitlinger (). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil Rights Legislation and Legalized Exclusion: Mass Incarceration and the Masking of Inequality

Pettit¹,

Sykes²

2015

Civil rights legislation in the 1960s promised greater racial equality in a variety of domains including education, economic opportunity, and voting. Yet those same laws were coupled with exclusions from surveys used to gauge their effects thereby affecting both statistical portraits of inequality and our understanding of the impact of civil rights legislation. This article begins with a review of the exclusionary criteria and some tools intended for its evaluation. Civil rights laws were designed at least in part to be assessed through data on the American population collected from samples of individuals living in households, which neglects people who are unstably housed, homeless, or institutionalized. Time series data from surveys of the civilian population and those in prisons and jails show that growth in the American criminal justice system since the early 1970s undermines landmark civil rights acts. As many as 1 in 10 black men age 20–34 are in prison or jail on any given day, and in the post–Great Recession era, young black men who have dropped out of high school are more likely to be incarcerated than working in the paid labor force. Our findings call into question assessments of equal opportunity more than half a century after the enactment of historic legislation meant to redress racial inequities in America.

“…This article is part of a special issue entitled, “Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1960s Civil Rights Laws.” Other authors include Andrews and Gaby (), Bonastia (), Lee (), McAdam (), Pettit and Sykes (), Santoro (), Valdez (), and Whitlinger ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy of the 1968 Fair Housing Act

Massey¹

2015

100

Civil rights activists in 1968 hoped that the passage of the Fair Housing Act would lead to the residential desegregation of American society. In this article I assess the degree to which this hope has been fulfilled. I begin by reviewing how the black ghetto came to be a universal feature of American cities during the 20th Century and the means by which high levels of black segregation were achieved. I then describe the legislative maneuvers required to pass the Fair Housing Act and review its enforcement provisions to assess its potential for achieving desegregation. After examining trends in residential segregation since 1970, I conclude with an appraisal of the prospects for integration as we move toward the 50th anniversary of the Act’s passage.2