Currently, the US Senate is debating an immigration bill. The bill, negotiated by a bipartisan Gang of Eight - four Democrats and four Republicans, attempts to expand legal employment based immigration, expand immigration in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math fields, give a path to legalization to 11M illegal immigrants already here, while increasing investment in border security, reducing family based immigration and making the laws against employers hiring illegal immigrants a lot stricter. It also inroduces a bunch of guest worker programs. Here are two summaries of the bill, one in the Wonkblog and the other in the Wall Street Journal. The bill just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This article, however, is not an examination of the merits of the proposal. It seems a bit of a waste of time to examine the merits as it seems highly unlikely that this bill will go anywhere. John Boehner has flatly ruled out allowing a vote on the Senate bill in the House. That means that even if the bill passes the Senate, it really has no where to go. Of course, that assumes the bill passes the Senate. According to CNN, it does not seem likely that there are 60 votes in the Senate to pass the bill. This is especially true because Senators Jeff Flake and Ted Cruz among others are taking a very hard line (the links take you to their record on immigration) and they are almost certainly going to filibuster. In case you think this is all about illegal immigration, Ann Coulter clarifies that its really not.
What the bill, however, drew my attention to was a slightly different question. The story we tell about the US is that its a haven for immigrants. In fact, many of the bill's supporters almost seem to be arguing that immigration reform is sort of manifest destiny for the US. They point out, as evidence, that almost everyone in the US is an immigrant and that for most families there is likely a first generation immigrant among their parents or grandparents or great grandparents.
What caught me by surprise is the vituperative, irrational and xenophobic rage that the topic appears to inspire among people as diverse as bloggers, commentators and various Senators and Congressmen. Why in the world in a country built by immigrants is immigration of all ilk - legal and illegal, being viewed so negatively by so many? Some have argued that while vociferous, this opposition is a minority racist view, the last hold over of a racist past. Possibly. However, the question of what is going on so intrigued me that I decided to investigate.
One of the first interesting charts I came across was this one which shows the immigrants in the US as a percentage of the total US population:
There are two fascinating aspects of this chart.
Here's a summary of the story.
As this Wikipedia article shows, every generation of new immigrants in the country has been met with opposition.
Racism in the US immigration policy actually started soon after independence. The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out any colored people. The US, the founding fathers seemed to be implying, was a country for white people. This situation continued till after the Civil War.
It wasn't only "non white" people who faced opposition though. Virtually every new wave of immigrants faced with opposition. The waves of Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s, for instance, were opposed purportedly due to fears that because of their Catholic heritage they'd take orders from the Pope.
After the Civil War, with the enactment of the 14th Amendment, it became clear that the discrimination against non white's could not continue. In 1870, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1870 which for the first time extended the naturalization process to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent". It however left intact the proscription against other races.
Over the next few years, many states started to pass their own immigration laws. In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration was the sole province of the Federal Government. In the same year, Congress passed its first immigration act - the Page Act of 1875. The Act sought to outlaw the importation of Asian contract laborers, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own countries. This was followed in 1882 by the Chinese Exclusion Act which effectively limited and nearly proscribed immigration by Chinese. This enshrined discrimination on the basis of race in US immigration policy.
It seems fascinating that so much of the effort in the first few immigration bills seemed to be targeting Asians. The trend did not stop there. Rules continued to be strengthened. Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous Chinese immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902. When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."
Meanwhile, immigration from other parts of the world continued undeterred. Italian immigration reached a peak in 1910. Eastern European immigration skyrocketed. And, curiously, Japanese immigrants were allowed. The prohibitions on Chinese immigration stemmed from fears that the Chinese would lower wages and displace white workers. The immigrants from Eastern and central Europe and from Japan actually offset any benefits that might have accrued from the anti Chinese policies.
The discrimination against the Chinese resulted in a bizarre situation where even people of Chinese origin born in the US who went out of the US and sought reentry were often denied reentry. Things came to a head in 1897 in Wong Kim Ark v United States in the Supreme Court. Here's a summary of the circumstances from the final opinion:
The provision against illiterate people was intended to stem the flow of Eastern and Central Europeans who, while white, were considered undesirable.
In 1921, the US introduced the National Origins formula restricting immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality that resident in the United States in 1910 and the Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years the formula would change from 3% to 2% and the basis for the calculation would be the census of 1890 instead of that of 1910. After June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000, with allocations by country based upon national origins of inhabitants according to the census of 1920. The quota system applied only to white immigrants. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants, to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the population.
In 1923, Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind created the official stance to classify Indians as non-white, which at the time retroactively stripped Indians of citizenship, since prosecutors argued Indian Americans had gained citizenship illegally. The California Alien Land Law of 1913 (invalidated in 1952) and others similar racist laws prohibited these aliens from owning land property, thus effectively stripping Indian Americans from land rights. The decision was placating racist Asiatic Exclusion League (AEL) demands, spurned by growing outrage at the Turban Tide/Hindu Invasion [sic] alongside the preexisting outrage at the "Yellow Peril".
So, let's recap. When the US was founded, the framers of the constitution introduced an Act to ensure that the US was a white nation. This policy only receded slightly after the Civil war, but the US passed waves of increasingly draconian measures to bar Asian immigration, ultimately completely banning it in 1917. By 1921, the US tried to freeze its racial composition to the 1910 composition, and three years later tries to freeze it to the 1890 composition. Meanwhile, in 1923, the US Supreme Court stripped Naturalized Indians of their citizenship and various states passed laws banning them from owning property and land.
This had a dramatic affect on immigration to the US as seen from this chart of European immigration to the US from 1881 to 1940:
So, now we have an explanation for the massive drop off in immigration in the 1920s. The US tried to maintain its racial composition and effectively throttled Asian immigration and massively curtailed Eastern European immigration.
These laws have been subsequently repealed beginning with a repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943 and then in waves until a complete elimination of the racial quota system in 1965. It should be noted though that the last vestiges of the system remains enshrined in law with a limit on the percentage of total immigrants from any one country, purportedly to ensure racial diversity, which continues to discriminate against Indians, Chinese and Mexicans.
Why is all this relevant?
Well, firstly when we hear someone like Ann Coulter argue for more British immigrants rather than more Latin Americans, many of us are quick to dismiss her as a fringe element. Except that historically speaking, Ann Coulter's view is the norm and the modern racially unbiased view is actually very much the aberration in the historical sense.
Secondly, when you hear people justify immigration because the US has been a nation of immigrants, remember that for the majority of the 20th century, immigration to the US was a fraction of current levels and the official immigration policy of the US was designed to retain the racial mix of the US. Moreover, what is being proposed in the immigration bill would actually push immigration to levels not seen in the last 150 years.
So, while there are a lot of good reasons for a liberal immigration policy, the proposed policy does in fact move the US further away from the historical racial mix and the policies that prevailed in the US for the first 150 years of its existence. This is does not argue against the immigration bill. It does, however, suggest that the opposition to the bill may not be as "fringe" as the mainstream narrative would suggest it is.
This article, however, is not an examination of the merits of the proposal. It seems a bit of a waste of time to examine the merits as it seems highly unlikely that this bill will go anywhere. John Boehner has flatly ruled out allowing a vote on the Senate bill in the House. That means that even if the bill passes the Senate, it really has no where to go. Of course, that assumes the bill passes the Senate. According to CNN, it does not seem likely that there are 60 votes in the Senate to pass the bill. This is especially true because Senators Jeff Flake and Ted Cruz among others are taking a very hard line (the links take you to their record on immigration) and they are almost certainly going to filibuster. In case you think this is all about illegal immigration, Ann Coulter clarifies that its really not.
What the bill, however, drew my attention to was a slightly different question. The story we tell about the US is that its a haven for immigrants. In fact, many of the bill's supporters almost seem to be arguing that immigration reform is sort of manifest destiny for the US. They point out, as evidence, that almost everyone in the US is an immigrant and that for most families there is likely a first generation immigrant among their parents or grandparents or great grandparents.
What caught me by surprise is the vituperative, irrational and xenophobic rage that the topic appears to inspire among people as diverse as bloggers, commentators and various Senators and Congressmen. Why in the world in a country built by immigrants is immigration of all ilk - legal and illegal, being viewed so negatively by so many? Some have argued that while vociferous, this opposition is a minority racist view, the last hold over of a racist past. Possibly. However, the question of what is going on so intrigued me that I decided to investigate.
One of the first interesting charts I came across was this one which shows the immigrants in the US as a percentage of the total US population:
There are two fascinating aspects of this chart.
- The first is that immigrants, as a percentage of the US population, are nearing a historic high. In fact, it is likely that if the new immigration bill passes, it will be at a historic high.
- The second is the spectacular drop in immigrants since the 1920s. I found this latter fact to be counter-intuitive as this is supposedly the high point for Italian, Polish and other immigration.
Here's a summary of the story.
As this Wikipedia article shows, every generation of new immigrants in the country has been met with opposition.
Racism in the US immigration policy actually started soon after independence. The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out any colored people. The US, the founding fathers seemed to be implying, was a country for white people. This situation continued till after the Civil War.
It wasn't only "non white" people who faced opposition though. Virtually every new wave of immigrants faced with opposition. The waves of Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s, for instance, were opposed purportedly due to fears that because of their Catholic heritage they'd take orders from the Pope.
After the Civil War, with the enactment of the 14th Amendment, it became clear that the discrimination against non white's could not continue. In 1870, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1870 which for the first time extended the naturalization process to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent". It however left intact the proscription against other races.
Over the next few years, many states started to pass their own immigration laws. In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration was the sole province of the Federal Government. In the same year, Congress passed its first immigration act - the Page Act of 1875. The Act sought to outlaw the importation of Asian contract laborers, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own countries. This was followed in 1882 by the Chinese Exclusion Act which effectively limited and nearly proscribed immigration by Chinese. This enshrined discrimination on the basis of race in US immigration policy.
It seems fascinating that so much of the effort in the first few immigration bills seemed to be targeting Asians. The trend did not stop there. Rules continued to be strengthened. Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous Chinese immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902. When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."
Meanwhile, immigration from other parts of the world continued undeterred. Italian immigration reached a peak in 1910. Eastern European immigration skyrocketed. And, curiously, Japanese immigrants were allowed. The prohibitions on Chinese immigration stemmed from fears that the Chinese would lower wages and displace white workers. The immigrants from Eastern and central Europe and from Japan actually offset any benefits that might have accrued from the anti Chinese policies.
Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.
The court ruled 6-2 in favor of the modern interpretation of citizenship - that anyone born in the US is a US Citizen irrespective of their parents' country of origin. The dissent penned by Chief justice Fuller basically argued that there were two criteria for being a citizen - one that you were born here and the second that you were not the subject of a foreign power. Their argument was that unless China renounced their claim, you could not become a US citizen merely by birth. The majority opinion basically argued that you were presumed to be a US subject by birth until you opted out.
While this protected natural born citizens challenges to immigration laws all failed and naturalized citizens enjoyed no such protections.
In 1917 Congress passed an even more draconian rule, where they barred immigration by illiterate people over 16 and created an Asiatic barred zone:
The provision against illiterate people was intended to stem the flow of Eastern and Central Europeans who, while white, were considered undesirable.
In 1921, the US introduced the National Origins formula restricting immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality that resident in the United States in 1910 and the Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years the formula would change from 3% to 2% and the basis for the calculation would be the census of 1890 instead of that of 1910. After June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000, with allocations by country based upon national origins of inhabitants according to the census of 1920. The quota system applied only to white immigrants. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants, to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the population.
In 1923, Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind created the official stance to classify Indians as non-white, which at the time retroactively stripped Indians of citizenship, since prosecutors argued Indian Americans had gained citizenship illegally. The California Alien Land Law of 1913 (invalidated in 1952) and others similar racist laws prohibited these aliens from owning land property, thus effectively stripping Indian Americans from land rights. The decision was placating racist Asiatic Exclusion League (AEL) demands, spurned by growing outrage at the Turban Tide/Hindu Invasion [sic] alongside the preexisting outrage at the "Yellow Peril".
So, let's recap. When the US was founded, the framers of the constitution introduced an Act to ensure that the US was a white nation. This policy only receded slightly after the Civil war, but the US passed waves of increasingly draconian measures to bar Asian immigration, ultimately completely banning it in 1917. By 1921, the US tried to freeze its racial composition to the 1910 composition, and three years later tries to freeze it to the 1890 composition. Meanwhile, in 1923, the US Supreme Court stripped Naturalized Indians of their citizenship and various states passed laws banning them from owning property and land.
This had a dramatic affect on immigration to the US as seen from this chart of European immigration to the US from 1881 to 1940:
So, now we have an explanation for the massive drop off in immigration in the 1920s. The US tried to maintain its racial composition and effectively throttled Asian immigration and massively curtailed Eastern European immigration.
These laws have been subsequently repealed beginning with a repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943 and then in waves until a complete elimination of the racial quota system in 1965. It should be noted though that the last vestiges of the system remains enshrined in law with a limit on the percentage of total immigrants from any one country, purportedly to ensure racial diversity, which continues to discriminate against Indians, Chinese and Mexicans.
Why is all this relevant?
Well, firstly when we hear someone like Ann Coulter argue for more British immigrants rather than more Latin Americans, many of us are quick to dismiss her as a fringe element. Except that historically speaking, Ann Coulter's view is the norm and the modern racially unbiased view is actually very much the aberration in the historical sense.
Secondly, when you hear people justify immigration because the US has been a nation of immigrants, remember that for the majority of the 20th century, immigration to the US was a fraction of current levels and the official immigration policy of the US was designed to retain the racial mix of the US. Moreover, what is being proposed in the immigration bill would actually push immigration to levels not seen in the last 150 years.
So, while there are a lot of good reasons for a liberal immigration policy, the proposed policy does in fact move the US further away from the historical racial mix and the policies that prevailed in the US for the first 150 years of its existence. This is does not argue against the immigration bill. It does, however, suggest that the opposition to the bill may not be as "fringe" as the mainstream narrative would suggest it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment