Subsequent federal laws governing immigrant restriction and deportation were modeled on the Massachusetts system. Nativist fervor cooled during the Civil War years, but the economic downturn of the s stirred a new wave of anti-immigrant sentiment—this time toward the Chinese. Fears that the Chinese would undercut American labor gave rise to a violent anti-Chinese movement in the western states, which soon emerged in Boston after Chinese immigrant workers arrived in Although liberal abolitionists and churches defended the Chinese, many native-born and Irish Bostonians feared the low wages, overcrowded living conditions, and the gambling and opium use that were evident in Chinatown.
Growing hostility resulted in passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in , a federal law that barred most Chinese from entering the country. Despite this legislation, the hostilities continued as Chinese-owned laundries and other businesses were frequently harassed, and police raids were common in Chinatown. The most dramatic case occurred in when dozens of police cordoned off the neighborhood and rousted hundreds from their homes and businesses without a warrant.
Searching for those who might have entered illegally, police arrested people, 50 of whom were deported.
The raid spread fear in Chinatown, and the Chinese population fell over the next decade. The Boston-based Immigration Restriction League was a key promoter of the law requiring immigrants to pass a literacy test before entering. This cartoon depicts the literacy bill as a wall built to keep out undesirable immigrants.
Courtesy of the Library of Congress. As Boston received a new influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe in the late 19 th century, Boston nativists looked to more comprehensive immigration restriction as a solution.
The objections to these newcomers were similar to earlier complaints about the Irish, but increasingly, nativists used scientific theories like social Darwinism and eugenics to support their claims. Viewing society as a hierarchy of races, nativists relied on flawed scientific ideas that saw new immigrants as inferior and unassimilable.
Organizations like the Immigration Restriction League, founded in Boston by three prominent Harvard alumni in , used such ideas to promote restrictive legislation. In , the League was instrumental in getting Congress to pass a literacy requirement for immigrants entering the country.
Although he was a Swiss citizen, Muck was later arrested, interned, and deported, as were several other German and Austrian-born members of the BSO. Italian immigrants also became a target of government repression during and after the war.
Looking to round up a militant anarchist group that carried out a series of bombings, the US Justice department led a campaign of raids and deportations that violated due process and terrorized the local Italian community.
In , the arrest of two anarchist shoe workers, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who were accused of robbing and killing two payroll guards in South Braintree, set off an international political controversy. With less than compelling evidence, the two were found guilty and executed in Although anarchists made up a tiny percentage of the immigrant community, the relentless surveillance and raids of Italian organizations and neighborhoods and the resulting stigma of violence and criminality affected all Italians to some degree.
The anti-immigrant fervor of the s and s culminated in the passage of new legislation restricting immigration. Passed in and , the laws reduced total immigration by placing an annual cap on the number of entrants and established a national quota system that heavily favored those from northern and western Europe. This paper identifies potential common ground in the US immigration debate, including the national interests that underlie US immigration and refugee policies, and broad public support for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests.
It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform, the legal immigration system, and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population President Trump issued executive orders after taking office in January that could lead to the removal of many of the 11 million unauthorized foreigners, including one million who work in US agriculture.
Agriculture in the western United States especially has long relied on newcomers to fill seasonal farm jobs. The slowdown in Mexico-US migration since means that there are fewer flexible newcomers to supplement the current workforce. Farm employers are responding with worker bonuses, productivity-increasing tools, mechanization, and guest workers.
Several factors suggest that the United States may be poised to embark on another large-scale guest worker program for agriculture. If it does, farmers should begin to pay payroll taxes on the wages of guest workers. The economic incentives provided by payroll taxes could help to usher in a new and better era of farm labor US immigration policy has serious limitations, particularly when viewed from an economic perspective.
Some shortcomings arise from faulty initial design, others from the inability of the system to adapt to changing circumstances. In either case, a reluctance to confront politically difficult decisions is often a contributing factor to the failure to craft laws that can stand the test of time. This paper argues that, as a result, some key aspects of US immigration policy are incoherent and mutually contradictory — new policies are often inconsistent with past policies and undermine their goals.
Inconsistency makes policies less effective because participants in the immigration system realize that lawmakers face powerful incentives to revise policies at a later date. It specifically analyzes US policies regarding unauthorized immigration, temporary visas, and humanitarian migrants as examples of incoherence and inconsistency.
Lastly, this paper explores key features of an integrated, coherent immigration policy from an economic perspective and how policymakers could better attempt to achieve policy consistency across laws and over time State and local involvement in immigration policy are varied but fall into two basic categories: 1 enforcement federalism, which concerns the extent to which localities should assist or resist federal removal policies, and 2 integration federalism, which encompasses measures designed to assist immigrants, regardless of status, to integrate in the United States.
This essay offers four basic principles to frame any future federalism agenda on immigration. This paper examines the importance of applying a subject-centered approach to understanding immigration noncompliance and to developing effective, ethical, and equitable immigration policies. In general, a subject-centered approach focuses on the beliefs, values, and perceptions of individuals whose behavior the law seeks to regulate. This approach has been widely used in non-immigration law contexts to produce a more nuanced understanding of legal noncompliance.
By contrast, the subject-centered approach has been an overlooked tool in the study of immigration noncompliance. This paper argues that a subject-centered understanding of why people obey or disobey the law can advance public knowledge and inform immigration policy in important ways. Specifically, the paper considers how the use of this approach might help us: 1 recognize the basic humanity and moral agency of unauthorized immigrants, 2 appreciate not only direct costs of immigration enforcement policies, but also their indirect and long-term costs, and 3 develop new and innovative strategies to achieving policy goals It contends that the Clash of Civilizations CoC paradigm is a useful lens to help understand the positions that President Trump has taken with respect to international affairs broadly, and specifically in his approach to immigration policy.
While there are unique aspects of the contemporary reaction against refugee resettlement, it is rooted in a much longer history that extends back to the World War II period. The paper explores this historical backdrop, and helps to clarify the reception of refugees after the fall of the Soviet Union. It also helps to explain how and why a CoC paradigm has become ascendant in the Trump administration.
The CoC paradigm is at its core pre-political, and the policy prescriptions that follow from it are more effect than cause. Beginning in the s, the United States embarked on a decades-long restructuring of federal laws criminalizing migration and increasing the consequences for migrants engaging in criminal activity.
Today, the results are clear: a law enforcement apparatus and immigration prison system propelled by a vast infrastructure of laws and policies. The presidency of Donald Trump augmented this trend and brought it to public attention. Examining these ideological attachments reveals Trump-era policies to be the outer edge of decades-long trends rather than extreme and momentary deviations from the norm.
In this essay, we review what is known about the role of race and legal status in the incorporation of immigrants in twenty-first-century America. While race and ethnicity matter in the social mobility of immigrants, racialization is not the impassable stumbling block critical race theory predicts. The research paints a remarkably consistent picture of intergenerational socioeconomic progress, one that is very similar to what happened with immigrants from Europe a century ago.
This mobility is accelerated for Asians and Blacks, but slower among Latinxs. Legal status is increasingly a block to integration and affects both undocumented immigrants and their citizen children.
While race and legal status intersect, we conclude that legal status is now playing a relatively autonomous role in limiting the life chances of many immigrants.
We raise the alarm about not only the direct effects of legal status, but its increasing role in racializing and excluding Latinx Americans. Over the past thirty-five years, federal immigration policy has brightened the boundaries of the category of undocumented status. For undocumented young people who move into adulthood, the predominance of immigration status to their everyday experiences and social position has been amplified.
The rise, fall, and survival of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a policy offering qualified youths a temporary semilegal status, have underlined how closely access and rights hew to the contours of contemporary immigration policy. This essay examines the roots, causes, and effects of racism experienced by Latinos in the Trump era.
Research on the impacts of incarceration and deportation describes the negative consequences for children and young people. But how these events impact adults and members of extended families has not been broadly considered. And no study has directly compared incarceration with deportation.
The study described in this essay, based on interviews with adult individuals with a family member deported 57 or incarcerated 54 , reveals how these experiences have long-lasting emotional and financial impacts and considers the similarities and differences between incarceration and deportation. The deportation or incarceration of parents is devastating; yet the absence of other relatives such as sons, sisters, brothers, aunts, cousins, grandchildren, and other household members also translates into severe sentimental and economic hardships not only for the immediate but also for the extended family.
No court case in recent history has propelled Asian Americans into the political sphere like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and no issue has galvanized them like affirmative action. Asian Americans have taken center stage in the latest battle over affirmative action, yet their voices have been muted in favor of narratives that paint them as victims of affirmative action who ardently oppose the policy.
Bridging theory and research on immigration, stereotypes, and boundaries, I provide a holistic portrait of SFFA v. Presumed competent and morally deserving, Asian Americans subscribe to the stereotype, and wield it to their advantage. Competence, moral worth, and respectability politics, however, are no safeguards against racism and xenophobia.
As fears of the coronavirus arrested the United States, so too has the rise in anti-Asian hate. The number of youth from mixed majority-minority families, in which one parent is White and the other minority, is surging in the early twenty-first century.
0コメント