Diverging Paths | Northern America | bpb.de

Canada and the United States are leading immigrant-receiving nations. In 2021, immigrants made up 15 percent of the U.S. population and 23 percent of Canada’s population. As settler colonial states, both use immigration to shape national narratives. Their immigration systems prioritize family unification, economic migration, and humanitarian admissions, but geographic and political differences have led to policy divergence since the post-war era.

Immigration Policy until WWII

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, U.S. immigration, mainly from Northern and Western Europe, was largely unregulated. By the late 19th century, increased migration from Southern and Eastern Europe and China sparked anti-immigrant sentiment, prompting restrictive laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. After World War I, race-based restrictions continued with 1921 and 1924 quota laws, favoring Northern and Western Europeans and banning Asians, until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Similarly, Canada initially favoured English-speaking settlers displaced by the American Revolution (1775-83), aiming for a "white Canada." Geographical and climatic challenges in the 19th century led to loosened restrictions, allowing for the admission of Balkan, Eastern European, and Chinese immigrants. Racist hostility subsequently led to Interner Link: restrictive laws targeting Asian immigrants.

Immigration Policy in the Postwar Era

Post-WWII policy changes shifted away from ethno-racial selection. The U.S. focused on family reunification, while Canada prioritized skill-based selection. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act in the U.S. ended the discriminatory national origins quota system, introduced family reunification and economic migrant preferences, and maintained per-country caps under restrictionist pressures. The 1990 Immigration Act expanded overall admissions to meet demands from ethnic groups and employers.

In Canada the 1967 Immigration Regulations introduced a universal points-based system, subsequently codified in the 1976 Immigration Act, which focused on skills, occupational demand, and language proficiency. These changes marked a significant shift in immigration policies, shaping future development in both countries.

Institutional Factors Driving Policy Divergence in the Postwar Era: Political Insulation

Understanding the divergent paths of these immigration systems requires examining the institutional factors driving policymaking, in particular the availability of political insulation thus the limitation or even absence of possibilities for actors such as interest groups to exercise influence on policymaking. In the U.S., Congress dominates immigration policymaking, with House and Senate committees providing ample interest group access. With its multiple veto points, this system favours compromise over ambitious reform. In the postwar era, family unification policies passed easily, but societal and partisan divisions hindered agreement on economic admissions and prevented the development of a skills-focused immigration policy. The 1990 Act increased immigration levels and introduced the high-skilled H-1B visa but continued prioritizing family reunification due to interest group pressure. In contrast, Canada's executive-dominated policymaking allows for centralized action through regulation by the government without requiring extensive legislative approval by the parliament. This context insulated policymakers from popular and interest group pressures, enabling the creation of a skills-based admission system.

Continued Policy Divergence Since the Early 2000s

In Canada, the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reinforced the executive branch's dominance and entrenched immigrant selection based on human capital (skills and education). Under the conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006-2015), admissions increasingly shifted from permanent to temporary immigrants. Mounting application backlogs led to drastic measures, including the removal of all applicants from the points systems’ queue. The new Express Entry system for skilled immigrants who want to settle in Canada permanently, launched on 1 January 2015, included greater employer-driven immigrant selection. The liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, sworn into office in November 2015, increased its commitment to refugee resettlement and increased overall immigration levels. Border closures during the COVID-19 pandemic prioritized the admission of temporary foreign workers already in Canada through a temporary to permanent resident pathway program.

In the United States, the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in a securitized policy environment. Calls for homeland protection and concerns about undocumented immigration from Mexico led to the enforcement-focused Sensenbrenner Bill, which failed in the Senate. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated 700 miles of border fencing, emphasizing securitization. Subsequent reform efforts, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, failed, frustrating employers dealing with a system focused on family unification amid political gridlock.

Donald Trump’s 2016 election shifted policy towards restrictionism through executive actions, including a temporary travel ban on Muslim-majority countries and attempts to repeal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a policy measure providing work authorization to undocumented youth. The 2017 RAISE Act sought to reduce overall immigration, cut family immigration, eliminate the diversity visa program, and introduce a points system, but ultimately failed in Congress. The Biden Administration (in office since 2021) initially repealed several of Trump's executive actions but later resumed strict border enforcement. Political divisions over undocumented immigration in particular once again blocked Congressional reform.

Understanding Continued Policy Divergence: Beyond Political Insulation

While institutional dynamics such as executive leadership in Canada and congressional gridlock in the U.S. continue to shape immigration policy in both countries, other factors also play a role with regard to differences in the migration policies of both North American democracies. The U.S. shares a long land border with Mexico. Given heightened global displacement and increased instability and violence in the so-called Northern Triangle – El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras –, it has little choice but to confront increases in irregular border crossings from Mexico. Further, U.S. politics is marked by greater political polarization compared to Canada. The Republicans’ rightward shift has entrenched the policy focus on border enforcement. In 2024, Biden issued an executive order that barred migrants who unlawfully cross the Southern border from receiving asylum and authorizing their expedited removal.

Canada’s geographic isolation, by contrast, buffers it from humanitarian flows, enabling it to control the volume of immigration and prioritize those who meet its economic and demographic needs. These dynamics are reinforced by Canada’s higher proportion of foreign-born residents and the electoral clout of immigrant voters, who have higher naturalization rates than immigrants in the U.S.. Canada's vast geography and its decentralized approach that allows the provinces to manage their own immigration programs according to their specific economic and demographic needs has also led to uneven immigration patterns that concentrate newcomers in major metropolitan districts.

Conclusion and Looking Ahead

What sets Canada apart from the U.S. is its executive-driven immigration policymaking, unlike the U.S.'s legislative approach. This enables Canada’s government to implement significant policy changes, such as shifting from family-based to economic-driven immigration, while remaining insulated from societal pressure. Additionally, Canada's tradition of consensual policymaking and cross-elite consensus have enabled more comprehensive and sustainable immigration reforms. In the U.S., policy reforms have failed due to Congressional gridlock resulting from institutional fragmentation and societal and partisan polarization.

Uncertainty surrounding the upcoming U.S. presidential elections in November 2024 and Canadian federal elections in October 2025 raises questions about the future of immigration in each country. Canada's less polarized stance on immigration may shift due to changing public opinion, challenging pro-immigration Canadian exceptionalism. In 2023, political actors began to link high immigration levels with Canada’s structural housing shortage, sparking public debate over infrastructural strain and raising doubts about Canada's ability to sustain high immigration. In 2024, the federal government announced a cap on temporary immigration, planning to reduce the temporary resident population. Changes to the International Student Program, including a provincial cap on study permit applications and post-graduation work permit eligibility, likewise reflect a tightening of temporary migration policies. Meanwhile, in the U.S., contested issues like irregular crossings, border enforcement, and the creation of legalization pathways for undocumented individuals remain central to political debate. The upcoming presidential election in November 2024 will show whether partisan divides will continue to hinder comprehensive immigration reform and if executive actions will become the new norm for achieving incremental and often short-lived policy change.