Immigration History and the US

Nothing is more frustrating to me than the abuse of History.  History, like Science, presents certain fundamental points of reference - facts, if you will, although I recognize that the premise of Science is that there is no fact; only things which haven't been proved false.

Certainly, people interpret the meaning of facts, or the circumstances surrounding fact, in different ways, and usually in favor of whoever is doing the interpretation, but regardless of interpretation, fundamental truths remain fundamental.

Jump with me to learn more.

Conserviative Christian talking points on "the institution of marriage" are one of the areas where the kind of abuse I'm referring to occurs. We all know what I mean:  "Marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred institution that has existed for thousands of years."  

Uh. Well, maybe. Not.  Not in any way, shape or form.

The history of Immigration into the US is another one of those areas I'm talking about.  

What set me off, of course, was an ad hominem attack - isn't that what sets us all off?

 You're full of sh*t (0 / 0)

  That's an overly simplistic version which doesn't address the slave trade

It doesn't address the fact we never let any tom dick or harry into the country.  There were rules and regulations.  The only difference then was that the people who came here, were willing to follow the rules.

And ummm... I'm native american, I belong right fcuking here, where I am right now (actually I'm in California, and I belong back in Oklahoma but for the sake of yelling at you).....  so if you want to get your pissy fit on and say stupid ishnit like "perhaps we all need to go back where we belong", well I'll call your bluff.  Go the fuck home.  Cuz I get to stay.  How u like them apples?  

Not everybody that is opposed to ILLEGAL immigration is a fat, white racist pig.  Some of us have roots going back here for 20,000 years.  Do you?  No, you don't.  So don't ever freakin' bring up "the appropriation of American Indian lands" (I'm not from India by the way) ever again in the context of an illegal immigration discussion.  That literally makes you sound more racist than that evil racist pig Tancredo.

The entire thread is here.

Now that we all know I "sound more racist than that evil racist pig Tancredo," and that I've been giving my marching orders to "Go the fuck home" (my only problem is, which home?  My maternal grandfather was full-blooded Cherokee, so may I have permission to cut off one leg and hip (approx 1/4 of my body) and drop it off in Oklahoma as I hobble my 3/4 white ass back to Europe?  Just wonderin'.)  But I digress.

What then, is the history of Immigration into what is now the United States of America?

Well, the first signficant governmental approach to immigration was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States".  That meant that they could acquire land/property sufficent to meet the requirements to vote. The only codicil to that was that they had to have resided in the US for two years.  But there were no documents issued to "citizens" to verify citizenship.

In 1819, Congress enacted the first significant federal legislation relating specifically to immigration. However, this legislation did not establish limits on who could immigrate to the US.  What it did do: 1) established the continuing reporting of immigration to the United States; and 2) set specific sustenance rules for passengers of ships leaving U.S. ports for Europe.

It wasn't until 1875 that the Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

That was soon followed not by bureaucratic and legal processes to verify who was a "legal immigrant", but rather by processes to begin identifying who could not immigrate.  The first of those, in 1882, was The Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. That was followed up in 1885 and 1887 by the Alien Contract Labor laws which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.

Even with the start of immigration legislation, it was not until 1891 that the Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.

And so, while there are some flaws (I did note that my brief comment was "overly simplistic") however, the basic facts really do uphold the premise:

You know, it used to be that there was (9+ / 0-)

no such concept as "illegals".  For fully three-quarters (probably more, I didn't stop to do the math) of the time that Anglo- and other-Europeans have been settling in this country, there were no regulations.  People just got on a boat, sailed or steamed their way west, disembarked, and disappeared into the bowels of US port cities.

That's an overly simplistic version which doesn't address the slave trade, the appropriation of American Indian lands, and the Spanish Conquest, but it's fundamentally accurate.

Perhaps we all need to go back where we belong, eh?

•  Love me, hate me,

  either way, why don’cha rate me?

  by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:57:59 AM PDT

  •  I'll show you some love

    And at the same time apologize for the craptacular quality of my comments last night.  I was severely sleep deprived and have learned a new lesson.  When I am so tired that I can't see straight, put the keyboard down and go to sleep.  Because otherwise half of the stuff that comes out will be incoherent babble.  

    So.... sorry for directing that at you.  I could have said what I wanted to say in a much better way (and not have made an ass of myself in the process) had I not been brain dead at the time.

    With that being said, I still completely disagree with you.  Half of my response was completely incoherent and obviously the writing of someone suffering from temporary brain deadness, but just because I was loopy at the time doesn't mean you were right.  

    and that I've been giving my marching orders to "Go the fuck home" (my only problem is, which home?  My maternal grandfather was full-blooded Cherokee, so may I have permission to cut off one leg and hip (approx 1/4 of my body) and drop it off in Oklahoma as I hobble my 3/4 white ass back to Europe?  Just wonderin'.)

    I believe you were the one that brought up the whole "go home" thing.  The situation you describe (your heritage) is exactly why such calls for "going home" are ridiculous.  Yes my response was juvenile and brain dead, but frankly even bringing that up did a disservice to your real point.

    by djpat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:27:51 PM PDT

    •  I appreciate your comment -

      and I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me.  But I guess part of the issue is that I felt like

      Perhaps we all need to go back where we belong, eh?

      was snarky enough on its own to not need identifying as snarky.  That's how I intended it, anyway.

      by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:59:52 PM PDT

•  There are many anti-immigration myths.

  You are on to something. I have been thinking about the myths used against todays immigrants for a while.

  One myth, which you quoted in your diary, but didn't highlight is that "The only difference then was that the people who came here, were willing to follow the rules."

  The idea that white European immigrants are different from the brown skinned immigrants of today is as ridiculous as it is insidious.

  Of course there were thousands of illegal immigrants from Italy, Ireland, Greece as well as China. Not everyone came through Ellis Island... many Europeans can to Canada as Agricultural workers and than slipped across the border. Because the laws put harsher quotas on Catholic countries (because Catholics can't assimilate you know), there were many illegal immigrants from southern Europe and Ireland.

  It is maddening that our history of illegal immigrants from Europe has been whitewashed.

  Of course the millions of Americans who descended from these illegal immigrants are just as American as any of us, and most probably don't even know (nor should they care).

  America is a nation of immigrants, both legal and illegal and those who came before there were laws. All of them contributed to America as she is today.

  by Sentido on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:15:33 AM PDT

  •  You're right -

    the question, of course is "what rules?"  For some time, there literally weren't any rules.  I just become so frustrated when people look at our current set of laws, customs and culture, and make the totally false leap of assumption that it's always been that way.  "We have immigration laws now?  Well, then we've always had them!"

    by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:39:36 AM PDT

    •  Here is my issue

      with your diary, and your comment last night.  And I hope I don't make a complete ass out of myself this time (sleep is such a wonderful thing, the best drug ever).

      For some time, there literally weren't any rules.  I just become so frustrated when people look at our current set of laws, customs and culture, and make the totally false leap of assumption that it's always been that way.  "We have immigration laws now?  Well, then we've always had them!"

      For some time, there literally weren't any rules, at least not like anything we have now (which you pointed out). But, during that time, there also weren't any space shuttles, or factories, or electric power, or computers, or pesticides, or 6 billion people on the globe all competing for a bigger slice of a shrinking pie.

      The population of the planet has more than quadrupled during the time frame you mention above in your diary.  There are no longer any large swaths of empty land inhabited by nomadic people to steal.  What may or may not have worked back then (the laws) is only germane to the discussion if you put it in context.

      And, I feel as though your failure to put your historical references in context, is rather disingenuous.  No, not as bad as Tancredo, not even close, but I still don't feel its truthful on your part.  I get the impression that you are trying to sway opinions by only giving part of the story.  The part of the story that supports your point of view.

      Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (and I promise never to call anybody a Tancredo again... that was wrong wrong wrong of me and I'm sorry), but from my point of view it seems as though you are guilty of same crime as many republicans, namely cherry picking facts that support your opinion, while at the same time, ignoring other facts that would put everything in context and actually support an opinion opposite of yours.

      I'm not going to call you names or hurl insults at you (I promise never to post comments on here while sleep deprived ever again).  I just get the impression that this is what you are doing.  If its not what you are doing, then I'm wrong for saying so and feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

      by djpat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

      •  That was my intent, for sure.

        In re-reading my diary, the first thing that comes to mind is the language I use.  I'm clouding my point, perhaps, by mixing up the use of "citizenship" and "immigration".  The "naturalization act" actually has nothing to do with the process of immigration and I shouldn't have included it.

        So, yes, there were restrictions on who could become citizens, but as eugene points out downthread, our borders were open and virtually anyone who wanted to could enter the country without hinderance. Even with the Alien and Sedition Acts (which were really directed at people already in-country, but not so much at people seeking to enter the country.) Ie: virtually anyone - even Chinese (we didn't experience much in the way of Asian immigration until the California gold rush, and they weren't turned back at the port of San Francisco at that point) could "immigrate" into the US.  Maybe not become recognized as citizens (their offspring ultimately did become citizens, of course) but no one and nothing really prevented people from immigrating, so long as they could obtain passage on a ship or walk themselves across the national borders.

        by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:22:36 PM PDT

        •  er. NOT my intent. NOT. :-o n/t

          by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:23:18 PM PDT

•  Not sure how to address this, but

  There's an incorrect perception that immigrants use more taxpayer funded social services than do the US-born.

  Back in the 19th century, the only things the federal government spent money on was shooting Indians and handing out land to railroad barons.  If an immigrant came here & didn't work, he starved.

  I'm not sure how to change perceptions.  Heck, when I go to the grocery store around here, I see people speaking Spanish paying with their Horizon cards.  I know that they are citizens or buying things for the US citizen kids.  But not everybody knows that.

  But that's why in the 19th century, people born in the US did not mind immigrants as much.

  by Utahrd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:15:58 AM PDT

  •  They minded immigrants a great deal

    There were major political movements throughout the 19th century US against immigrants - whether it was the "Know Nothing" movement against the Irish in the 1850s, the anti-foreigner movement in the California gold fields in the same decade, the Workingman's Party in California in the 1870s (organized against the Chinese) or the widespread agitation against European immigration in the 1890s.

    This anti-immigrant business has been going on ever since the US became an industrialized nation. The same script plays itself out every single time - a group of white Americans gets together, blames their economic problems on the immigrants, says the immigrants don't belong, and delude themselves into thinking they can improve their lot by exclusion. But total exclusion is impossible to accomplish, and what exclusions do occur are simply discriminatory and oppressive in form (denying people jobs, benefits, rights).

    And worst of all, such exclusionism has NEVER, not once, actually improved the lot of the American worker. Never.

    That is because the only solution to economic problems is to organize ALL workers, not to instead argue some are more deserving than others.

    US history is absolutely clear on this.

    by eugene on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:22:04 AM PDT

•  I'm assuming the Horizon card is

  what replaced what we used to call "food stamps", in which case, one needs to be "legal" to actually receive a Horizon card, doesn't one?

  That was all demonized in the Reagan years - the urban myths about the woman who drove a Caddy, wore furs to the grocery store and paid for all her food with food stamps, eh?  That's why people have such negative feelings; that and zenophobia, which was also promoted by the Reagan campaigns.

  by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:43:12 AM PDT

•  He was right, you are wrong.

  Well, the first signficant governmental approach to immigration was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States".

  Since 1790, about two thirds of the globe was denied naturalization.  It's not the most restrictive of requirements, but it's a requirement.

  by Inland on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

  •  But they were not denied entry

    Or legal status.

    by eugene on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:14:18 AM PDT

    •  "Legal status"?

      What legal status was that?  

      It seems clear enough: naturalization was available to free whites.  I'm not sure who else was coming over in 1790 besides free whites, indentured whites, and unfree blacks.

      by Inland on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:03:29 PM PDT

  •  While that may have been literally true

    it wasn't functionally true.

    What was functionally true is that at that point in time, voluntary immigration patterns to the "new world" didn't include most of the non-white population of the world.  And what eugene said ;-)

    by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:08:12 PM PDT

    •  functionally, the US

      didn't have control over the frontiers.  Now, it does.  

      by Inland on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:57:24 PM PDT

      •  Yes, it does. But my dairy was about

        history, not about the present day.

        by aggieric on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:20:53 PM PDT

•  Mostly there

  They key point is that, the Chinese excepted, until 1917 the US had a policy of open borders. Anyone who wished to emigrate here could do, as had been the case since about 1607. The US regulated who could be naturalized - i.e. made a citizen - but those who came before 1917 were still of a legal resident status. You would only be refused entry to the US if you were seriously ill.

  Only in 1917 did we start to see the creation of the idea that immigration to the US would be limited and restricted. At the time this was done for overtly racist reasons, as was openly acknowledged by supporters of the restrictions. The 1917 law was meant to be a wartime measure. In 1921 it was renewed and in 1924 it was made permanent.

  In 1965 immigration laws were loosened to undo the racial basis of the quota system. However, the 1965 reform still left quotas in place, they were just allocated differently. Since 1965 a number of exceptions have been created, but we still maintain the limited system put in place in 1917.

  by eugene on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:17:56 AM PDT

  •  Wrong

    Immigrants could be kept out of the US for being a polygamist, anarchist, a LPC or Likely public charge and several other reasons.

    Single women traveling alone were likely to be singled out as LPCs unless someone vouched for them, as in the case of my Great-Grandmother.

    True, it was not a huge number, but there was control over people coming in.

    by redcardphreek on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:44:27 AM PDT

    •  My point being

      There were no quotas or hard restrictions on who could enter the US. We had pretty much an open borders system.

      by eugene on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM PDT