The United States has been described as a melting pot. It is portrayed as a land of opportunity for those that make the journey here and the home of the free and brave who have been able to become citizens. In the late 1800s, after the Civil War, America swung wide the gates to the country inviting immigrants to come and make a life for themselves, to hold jobs, to become citizens and be part of society. Immigrant labor helped build the country. However, these doors began to close as regulations and restrictions were implemented to control the entry of “undesirable” emigrants. Restrictive reasoning ranged from an attempt to protect America from disease to arguments against the morality of the ethnicities entering and a focus on lessening the burden on society in response to emigrants that were sick or unable to work. As America evolved, changes in immigration laws were a way to either capitalize on new citizens or control the burden socially and economically on American society.
By looking at six different approaches to immigration from 1865 to present we shall see that the acceptance or restriction of immigration has been based on nativism and public opinion. The six approaches are as follows: Immigration from 1865 -1881, Chinese Exclusion in 1882, The Literacy Test of 1917, The Immigration Law of 1924, the relaxing of immigration law with the Immigration and Nationality act of 1965, and, finally modern immigration policy and its reflection of nativism.
Immigration begins with the idea that there are “others.” These others are either seen as beneficial because of what they offer to society, seen as a burden because of their needs, or seen as a threat to a nation’s stability. (Castro, 2004) Since 1865 immigration policy has reflected these assumptions resulting in a blend of ethnic prejudice and nationalism that influences regulations called nativism. Nativism is based on assumptions that these ‘others’ will not be able to fully integrate into society or that they pose a threat either directly to the nation they are seeking to inhabit or to it’s future. (Curran, 1966) Nativist arguments can be seen at each turn of immigration policy sometimes based on race exclusively, and at other times focused more on American national identity and the perceived inability of people of other nations to assimilate and contribute to this society.
In 1893 the Journal of Political Economy published an article on the international structure of immigration in the United States at the time. Recounting the number of immigrants that had come from different countries and labeling these countries as either desirable or undesirable sources of immigration, William Jeffrey came to the conclusion that the future of America did not look very bright. His reasoning for this was a sharp increase in the number of immigrants coming from undesirable nations with a less substantial increase for nations considered more desirable. Jeffrey saw immigrants coming from England, Ireland and France as mostly desirable and those from Italy, Poland, Russia and Hungary as largely undesirable. During the decade before this report, 1881 to 1890, desirable immigration had increased on 41 percent while undesirable immigration had increased 435 percent. He specifically stated that “60 percent of these [undesirable immigrants] . . . were unable to read or write when they landed,” and that this illiteracy was “largely responsible for the vast amount of crime” in the country. He claimed that 51 ½ percent of convicts in penitentiaries at the time were foreign born. His suggestion was to limit undesirable immigration by requiring potential immigrants to submit documentation of their moral, physical and intellectual character and ensure a standard was met. If the immigrants could not provide this documentation, they would risk being turned away at the shores. (Jeffrey, 1893) This approach to immigration is a far cry from the open door policy America is known for. Well depicted in the poem by Emma Lazarus that was written in 1883 and is now inscribed on a plaque within the Statue of Liberty are the words: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of our teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” (How Tall is the Statue of Liberty, 2013) By the later 1800s America had become a nation with it’s own identity and was now willing to exclude those that did not fit the ideals of the still young democracy and those that posed a threat to the stability of its citizens or resources.
Following Jeffrey’s report, immigration became more and more restrictive. The most restrictive point, and heightened point of American nativism, was in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This Act placed a ban lasting 10 years on Chinese labor immigration based on arguments for the exclusion because of a perceived inability of the Chinese to fully assimilate into American culture, their tendency to send money back to relatives at home, their “taking” of American jobs and their choices in community lifestyle. The Chinese Exclusion Act was also the first time the U.S. federal government excluded an ethnic group under the premise to protect the citizens of America and their potential access to employment. (Bowles, 2011) Not all were in favor of this ban or its racial implications. In 1902, William Lloyd Garrison spoke to the Henry George Club in Philadelphia asserting that the ban on the Chinese, done through an attempt to discredit the character of an entire race and the history of Chinese immigration, was actually “a chapter of disgrace which should bring a blush to every American cheek.” He argued that reasons for the ban were weak and could be applied to other nationalities, though the others were not at the risk of the ban and that the charges against the Chinese were “trumped up”. (Garrison, 1902) He concluded that votes and politics were the real basis for the ban, though the arguments were couched in nativism inspiring public support of the ban.
The years following the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act grew more restrictive. One of the key steps towards restrictive and protective immigration law was the Immigration Act of 1917. World War I had increased the desire for restriction, increased anti-alien sentiments and increased American fears of those that were “unassimilated foreign-born minorities.” A high unemployment rate also affected views of incoming labor workers in the years prior to 1917 and fluctuating economics played a role influencing pro or anti-immigration arguments. It appeared that the American people believed that immigration was hindering wage advancement for citizens and politics followed the desire to implement restrictions. (Timmer & Williams, 1998) A key component of the Immigration Act of 1917 was the addition of a long fought for literacy test issued to immigrants over sixteen years of age. For 20 years, restrictionists had proposed the literacy test as a means to limit immigrants who would qualify and restrict immigration only to those that would be able to pass the test. This was seen as a means to limit delinquents and “undesirables”. With the Immigration Law of 1917 passing the literacy test became a condition of permanent residence. (Hutchinson, 1949)
National-interest and public opinion continued to inform immigration in the years after 1917. “Our immigration legislation has been distinctly opportunistic,” said Henry Pratt Fairchild in 1924, referring to more lenient immigration restrictions that accepted more laborers when they could not be found in the American people and the growing restrictions supported by public opinion and in national interest. By 1924 permanent and restrictive immigration law was being accepted as the “bulk of American citizens . . . were well convinced of the benefits of restriction.” Group selection in regards to immigration had started in the form of quotas that allowed only a certain percentage of immigrants from particular nations based on census counts. The argument for a permanent restrictive law was based in accepted nativism and “preserving the racial make-up of the American people as near to what it was at the time of the Revolutions as is now possible.” Fairchild proclaimed, “The United States is to be a white man’s country. This determination has been inherent in American thought from the very beginning.” The final votes to pass restrictive immigration law were 69 to 9 in the House, 308 to 58 in the Senate and the law was signed into existence by President Coolidge May 26, 1924. (Fairchild, 1924)
This preference to support a “white” nation was the basis of immigration law until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It is argued that the increased diversification that was a result of the 1965 Act was unanticipated, but some key political leaders of the time may have intended to support legislation that would make America more diverse and lessen the effects and tendency of racial discrimination. Arguments in favor of the changing immigration law were contrary to the exclusionary arguments of the past. Senator Edward M. Kennedy argued that the quota system was “contrary to our basic principles as a nation,” and Senator Joseph Clark called the restrictions, “irrational, arrogantly intolerant, and immoral.” (Chin, 1996) The very first provision of the 1965 Immigration Bill was “to abolish the national origins quota system.” Also included in the bill was the elimination of the “Asia-Pacific Triangle” immigration restrictions that placed particular hardship on Asian immigrants based on ancestry. (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, 1965)
With the passing of the Immigration Law of 1965 it seemed American nativism had lessened, allowing for an increase in the acceptance of foreign nationalities and move towards a more racially diverse and less discriminatory nation. However, this era of weak nativism did not last long and by the mid 1990s a sharp rise in American nativism, once again built on a political desire for votes, would fuel new anti-immigration efforts. In his book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, published in 1995, Peter Brimelow claims recent immigrants are to blame for rising crime rates, problems with healthcare, lowered educational outcomes and the feeling of broken community in America. In addition, modern protectionism could be based on three major factors in the American public: The first factor in modern nativism is the fear that language and linguistic difference could undermine the nation – this is seen in the “English Only” proposals that began in California. The second factor is that affirmative action favors non-Americans and encourages, “[retention of] their distinct racial and ethnic identities”. The third nativist argument from the 1990s is that immigration, whether legal or illegal, drains resources of welfare, education and healthcare. Though studies have shown that immigrant populations underutilize national services, “The notion that immigrants are now coming to the United States to take advantage of welfare, health and education benefits has led directly to federal legislation which allows states to ban such assistance to even legal immigrants.” (Sanchez, 1997)
Since 1865 we can see that changes in immigration policies have been based on evolving trends in American nativism and public opinion. Starting in 1865, views on immigration became more restrictionist as an American national identity was established and the desire to protect it from foreign influence arose. Political documents from this time show that a desire to maintain America as a “white man’s” country influenced restrictions, as did the argument that incoming immigrants posed a threat to American resources. Evaluations of immigrants to ensure they were not sick, were able to work, and did not have a criminal record were established through this time in an effort to stop undesirable immigrants from entering the country. Following in the path of this nativism the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 particularly focused efforts on reducing immigrants of Asian ancestry. Arguments for the exclusion included the Chinese inability to fully assimilate into American culture, their tendency to send money back to relatives at home, their “taking” of American jobs and their choices in community lifestyle. These arguments were contradicted by William Lloyd Garrison, but still led to the Exclusion Act of 1882. The Literacy Test of 1917 further established restrictions on immigration to those that were able to pass the English language literacy test, which became a key win for those fighting to restrict immigration. Further measures were taken in 1924 as American citizens were convinced that restriction was best for the country. Quota systems were developed to ensure the most desirable immigrants were entering the country and the percentage make-up of American citizens was in line with the ethnic make up of America just after the Revolution. Laws remained restrictive for the next 40 years until 1965 when the Asian restrictions and quota system was lifted in the hopes to establish a more diverse and inclusive country, which was once again seen as the true nature of the United States. However, economic hardship and politics once again began to influence public opinion in the 1990s during the California race riots and restrictions towards legal and illegal immigrants were again established, though not based on race as seen in previous decades.
We can see that nativism and public opinion have directly influenced differing immigration policies over the last 140 years and as the perceived benefits of immigration or perceived risk to the American culture and/or economy has changed, so has American policy towards immigration.
Bibliography
Bowles, M. D. (2011). American History 1865 to Present; The End of Isolation. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education.
Castro, M. J. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the New Nativism: Economic Forces, Ethnic Politics and US Immigration Policy. In H. B. Entzinger, & C. Wihtol De Wenden, Migration Between States and Markets. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Chin, G. J. (1996). The Civil Rights Revolution Comes to Immigration Law: A New look at the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Davis: North Carolina Law Review.
Curran, T. J. (1966, Spring). Assimilation and Nativism. International Migration Digest , pp. 15-25.
Fairchild, H. P. (1924). The Immigration Law of 1924. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 653-665.
Garrison, W. L. (1902). Chinese Exclusion. The Advocate for Peace , 35-39.
How Tall is the Statue of Liberty. (2013). What is the quote on the Statue of Liberty. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from How Tall is the Statue of Liberty: http://www.howtallisthestatueofliberty.org/what-is-the-quote-on-the-statue-of-liberty/
Hutchinson, E. (1949). Immigration Policy Since World War I. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences , 15.
Jeffrey, W. (1893). Immigration. Journal of Political Economy , 433-435.
Sanchez, G. J. (1997). Face the Nation: Race, Immigration and Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America. International Migration Review , 1009-1030.
Timmer, A. S., & Williams, J. G. (1998). Immigration Policy Prior to the 1930s: Labor Markets, Policy Interactions and Globalization Backlash. 739-771.
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. (1965). Summary of the Major Provisions of the President's Immigration Bill Bubmitted to Congress January 13, 1965. International Migration Digest , 66-67.
No comments:
Post a Comment