DOCSLIB.ORG

A Brief History of Immigration Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Brief History of Immigration Policy AA BriefBrief HistoryHistory ofof ImmigrationImmigration PolicyPolicy Quantitative Methods for Public Policy Macalester College Spring, 2005 Steve Holland “Landing of Columbus” (frieze in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol) The greatest number of legal immigrants to arrive in the United States in any single decade is… 1) 130,000 6) 9 million 2) 550,000 7) 16 million 3) 1 million 8) 27 million 4) 3 million 9) 52 million 5) 6 million 10) 93 million Which decade had the greatest number of immigrants arrive in the United States? 1) 1870 6) 1930 2) 1890 7) 1950 3) 1900 8) 1960 4) 1910 9) 1980 5) 1920 10) 1990 What percentage of people residing in the United States are immigrants (2003)? 1) 0.6% 2) 1.9% 3) 6.4% 4) 11.7% 5) 22.4% 6) 39.1% The first restrictions on immigration into the United States were placed upon: 1) Chinese 3) Illiterates 2) Irish 4) Paupers The United States first began patrolling its borders in: 1) 1779 4) 1941 2) 1865 5) 1968 3) 1924 6) 1987 Number of legal immigrants to U.S. by decade 10000 9095 9000 8795 8000 7338 7000 6000 5736 5247 (1,000's) 5000 4493 4107 4000 3688 Number 3322 3000 2812 2598 2515 2315 2000 1035 1000 528 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year Source: INS Statistical Sourcebook The greatest number of legal immigrants to arrive in the United States in any single decade is… 1) 130,000 6) 9 million 2) 550,000 7) 16 million 3) 1 million 8) 27 million 4) 3 million 9) 52 million 5) 6 million 10) 93 million This occurred in the 1990’s Percent of U.S. population that is foreign born 20 18 16 14.8 14.7 14.4 13.6 14 13.2 13.3 13.2 12 11.6 10.4 10 9.7 8.8 7.9 8 % foreign born 6.9 6.2 6 5.4 4.7 4 2 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Source: U.S. Census Bureau What percentage of people residing in the United States are immigrants (2003)? 1) 0.6% 2) 1.9% 3) 6.4% 4) 11.7% 5) 22.4% 6) 39.1% In 2003 the percentage rose to 11.7%. There were an estimated 33.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. out of a total population of about 290 million EARLY IMMIGRATION POLICY •Restrictions began to be implemented in response to tensions between immigrant and native groups or political events •For example, the large number of Chinese immigrants in the West did not assimilate well with settlers of European descent 1882 – from www.picturehistory.com CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882 “Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof.” Forty-Seventh Congress. Session I. 1882 Chapter 126 The first restrictions on immigration into the United States were placed upon: 1) Chinese 3) Illiterates 2) Irish 4) Paupers An East Coast, Eurocentric view of immigration led to strong biases against Chinese and Japanese immigrants on the West Coast. ) •Mainly Southern and Eastern European immigrants (Italian, Greek, Poles) 0 2 •Most stayed in the Northeastern U.S. 9 1 - •Sought wages in the new U.S. industrial society (factories, railroads, mines) 0 8 8 1 Number of legal immigrants to U.S. by decade ( 10000 n o 9000 ti 8000 a r 7000 g i 6000 M 5000 (1,000's) t 4000 Number a e 3000 r 2000 G 1000 e h 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 T Year The Assassination of President McKinley Source: Erie County Bar Association ALIEN IMMIGRATION ACT (1903) Excluded: “idiots” “insane persons” “epileptics” “paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars” “persons afflicted with a loathsome or with a dangerous contagious disease” “persons who have been convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude” “polygamists” “anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States” “prostitutes, and persons who procure or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women for the purpose of prostitution” 32 STAT 1213,ch.1012 IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 The “Asiatic Barred Zone” IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 Also barred “illiterates” Aimed at southern and eastern Europeans Quota Laws (1920’s) First Border Limits on the number of Patrol (1924) immigrants by nation of origin Number of legal immigrants to U.S. by decade 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 (1,000's) 4000 Number 3000 2000 1000 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year The United States first began patrolling its borders in: 1) 1779 4) 1941 2) 1865 5) 1968 3) 1924 6) 1987 OTHER NOTEWORTHY EVENTS INS moved from DOL to DOJ (1940) Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and Amendments (1965) Kept quotas but now calculated by hemisphere Introduced preferences TOP 10 COUNTRIES FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS: 1960 AND 1990 1960 1990 Country Immigrants % of total Country Immigrants % of total Mexico 32,684 12.3 Mexico 56,549 8.6 Germany 31,768 12.0 Philippines 54,907 8.4 Canada 30,990 11.7 Vietnam 48,662 7.4 U.K. 24,643 9.3 Dominican R. 32,064 4.9 Italy 14,933 5.6 Korea 29,548 4.5 Cuba 8,283 3.1 China 28,746 4.4 Poland 7,949 3.0 India 28,679 4.4 Ireland 7,687 2.9 Soviet Union 25,350 3.9 Hungary 7,257 2.7 Jamaica 18,828 2.9 Portugal 6,968 2.6 Iran 18,031 2.7 All Others 92,236 34.8 All Others 314,747 48.0 TOTAL 265,398 100.0 TOTAL 656,111 100.0 European countries in blue Asian countries in red Source: Mizell and Jones, 2003 The Current State of U.S. Immigration Policy Immigration Status Numerical limits Illegal immigration Benefits Naturalization What group accounts for the largest number of legal immigrants to the United States? 1) Lottery winners 2) Refugees 3) Employment sponsored 4) Family members of citizens Of the illegal immigrants who are apprehended in the United States, what percentage are removed? 1) 10% 6) 60% 2) 20% 7) 70% 3) 30% 8) 80% 4) 40% 9) 90% 5) 50% 10) 100% Can illegal immigrants apply to become legal residents after a certain length of time? 1) Yes 2) No Which of the following is NOT true about illegal immigrants? 1) They have full access to public K-12 education. 2) They pay taxes. 3) They receive the same legal protections as documented workers. 4) All of these statements are true. 5) None of these statements are true. IMMIGRANT STATUS 1. Non-immigrants • Visitors, temporary workers, students, government officials, and some others 2. Immigrants • Family-sponsored immigration • Employer-sponsored immigration • Win the visa lottery • Apply to adjust status to lawful permanent resident 3. Refugees (outside the U.S.) and Asylees (inside the U.S.) • Must show a “well founded fear of persecution” • Limits on the number of refugees but not asylees 4. Parolees • A temporary protected status due to an extraordinary condition in the home country NUMERICAL LIMITS Limited Groups: 2001 Figures (approx.) •Family-sponsored preference 225,000 •Employment-sponsored preference 140,000 •Lottery winners 55,000 •Refugees 125,000 Not Limited: •Immediate family members 450,000 (spouses and minor children of citizens) •Asylees small Total: 1,065,000 Source: Mizell and Jones: “U.S. Immigration Policy” What group accounts for the largest number of legal immigrants to the United States? 1) Lottery winners 2) Refugees 3) Employment sponsored 4) Family members of citizens ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Illegal entry •Stop immigrants and the border How do you become •Punish employers who hire illegal immigrants “illegal”? Overstayed a temporary visa •About 40% of illegal immigration Removal What happens •“Expedited removal” once you •“Removal proceedings” are caught? •About 10% of illegal immigrants are removed Of the illegal immigrants who are apprehended in the United States, what percentage are removed? 1) 10% 6) 60% 2) 20% 7) 70% 3) 30% 8) 80% 4) 40% 9) 90% 5) 50% 10) 100% FISCAL COSTS AND BENEFITS Employment •Immigrants, even illegal ones, pay income tax •Employers are punished for hiring illegal immigrants Education •Immigrants, even illegal ones, may receive a public education Means-tested benefits •Entering prior to 1996: Benefits to “qualified” immigrants •Entering after 1996: Many benefits denied for non-citizens (e.g. SSI and food stamps) Which of the following is NOT true about illegal immigrants? 1) They have full access to public K-12 education. 2) They pay taxes. 3) They receive the same legal protections as documented workers. 4) All of these statements are true. 5) None of these statements are true. The DOL’s position is to enforce minimum wage and other labor regulations regardless of whether a worker is documented. The Supreme Court recently said undocumented workers are not protected by the NLRA. This decision casts doubt on whether the DOL’s position is legally sound. Illegal immigrants are also excluded from food stamps, welfare programs and many other federal benefits. NATURALIZATION Available to “lawful permanent residents” Must be a legal resident of the U.S. for five continuous years Requirements: Good moral character Knowledge of English and U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vivir En El Norte Lectura.Pdf
    1 2 Rodolfo Cruz Piñeiro Rogelio Zapata-Garibay (coordinadores) 3 4 Rodolfo Cruz Piñeiro Rogelio Zapata-Garibay (coordinadores) 5 ¡Vivir en el norte! : condiciones de vida de los mexicanos en Chicago / Rodolfo Cruz Piñeiro, Rogelio Zapata-Garibay, coordinadores. – Tijuana : El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, 2013. 322 pp. ; 14 x 21.5 cm ISBN: 978-607-479-115-0 1. Mexicanos – Illinois – Chicago. 2. México – Emigración e inmigración. 3. Estados Unidos – Emigración e inmigración. I. Cruz Piñeiro, Rodolfo. II. Zapata-Garibay, Rogelio. III. Colegio de la Frontera Norte (Tijuana, Baja California). F 550 .M4 V5 2013 Primera edición, 2013 D. R. © 2013, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, A. C. Carretera escénica Tijuana-Ensenada km 18.5 San Antonio del Mar, 22560, Tijuana, B. C., México www.colef.mx ISBN: 978-607-479-115-0 Coordinación editorial: Óscar Manuel Tienda Reyes Corrección y diseño editorial: Franco Félix Última lectura: Luis Miguel Villa Aguirre Fotografía de portada: Ali Ertürk Impreso en México / Printed in Mexico 6 ÍNDICE Introducción. ¡Vivir en el norte! Compleja realidad de los mexicanos en Chicago Rogelio Zapata-Garibay ..……………….........……...…… 9 Presencia mexicana en Chicago: Breve revisión historiográfica Rogelio Zapata-Garibay .……..……….................….…... 43 Características sociodemográficas de los mexicanos residentes en Chicago Rogelio Zapata-Garibay / Jesús Eduardo González-Fagoaga / Rodolfo Cruz Piñeiro ................……. 71 Trabajadores de origen mexicano en la zona metropolitana de Chicago Maritza Caicedo Riascos ....……...................................... 101 7 Aspectos de la salud de los mexicanos en Chicago Rogelio Zapata-Garibay /Jesús Eduardo González-Fagoaga / María Gudelia Rangel Gómez / Grecia Carolina Gallardo Torres ……...……….. 135 La construcción de la doble pertenencia de los mexicanos en Chicago Marlene Celia Solís Pérez / Guillermo Alonso Meneses / Rogelio Zapata-Garibay ...…..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Act of 1924 from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Immigration Act of 1924 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68-139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, mainly Jews fleeing persecution in Poland and Russia, who were immigrating in large numbers starting in the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration President Coolidge signs the of Middle Easterners, East Asians and Indians. According to the U.S. immigration act on the White House Department of State Office of the Historian, "In all its parts, the most basic South Lawn along with appropriation purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of American bills for the Veterans Bureau. John J. homogeneity."[1] Congressional opposition was minimal. Pershing is on the President's right. Contents 1 Provisions 2 History 3 Results 4 See also 5 References 6 Sources 7 External links Provisions The Immigration Act made permanent the basic limitations on immigration into the United States established in 1921 and modified the National Origins Formula established then. In conjunction with the Immigration Act of 1917, it governed American immigration policy until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which revised it completely.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. on Guest Worker Proposals
    Testimony of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. on Guest Worker Proposals Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, February 5, 2004, Washington D.C. Guestworker Programs for Low-Skilled Workers: Lessons from the Past and Warnings for the Future Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. Cornell University Immigration policy is mine field of controversial issues. Programs to legally permit low skilled foreign nationals to work in the same labor market as U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens are among the most explosive. Because such endeavors have been undertaken in the past, they have a track record. They have been the subject of extensive research. There is no need to speculate about what might happen if any new such venture-- such as that proposed by the Bush Administration on January 7 , 2004--were to be enacted. The outcome can be predicted. The Traditional Role The origin of guestworker policy in the United States and its historic role has been as a national emergency program. During World Wars I and II as well as the Korean Conflict, extensive reliance was made of such endeavors. Guestworker programs were included among other extreme policies such as wage and price controls and the relaxing of antitrust laws used by policymakers during times of national peril. They are extraordinary policies to be used as a last resort-and then only as temporary measures. Unlike the other extreme measures that were quickly abandoned after the wars were over, however, guestworker programs have proven to be difficult to end.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Immigration Policy Toward Mexico: an Historical Perspective
    UCLA Chicana/o Latina/o Law Review Title United States Immigration Policy toward Mexico: An Historical Perspective Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fh8773n Journal Chicana/o Latina/o Law Review, 2(0) ISSN 1061-8899 Author Cárdenas, Gilberto Publication Date 1975 DOI 10.5070/C720020914 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION POLICY TOWARD MEXICO: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE GILBERTO CARDENAS* Since the turn of the century agricultural growers and industrialists have been importing or otherwise encouraging Mexi- can nationals to migrate to the United States on an organized basis. In 1918, for example, the Department of Labor and the Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service (hereinafter referred to as INS) authorized the importation of 30,000 Mexican nationals to work in agriculture, railroads and other defense-related employment as part of the war effort.' Since then, the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture and the State Department, operating under various mandates and in conjunction with organized Ameri- can interest groups, have invoked departmental policies and practices that have effectuated specific migration patterns of Mexican nationals and Mexican labor on both sides of the border. These migration patterns have taken various forms-be they legal immigration, bracero, commuter or illegal-and are sufficiently interrelated to be considered as part of an overall United States immigration policy toward Mexico. This article will examine this policy in three parts. The first part will examine the period roughly before 1930. The second is divided into two periods: (1) the depression of the 1930's; and (2) the period of the bracero program.
    [Show full text]
  • Respectability & the Quest for Citizenship
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 83 | Issue 1 Article 12 12-12-2017 Respectability & the Quest for Citizenship Angela M. Banks Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Angela M. Banks, Respectability & the Quest for Citizenship, 83 Brook. L. Rev. (2017). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol83/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. Respectability & the Quest for Citizenship Angela M. Banks† INTRODUCTION Historically, immigration and citizenship law and policy in the United States has been shaped by the idea that certain immigrant populations present a threat to American society. Such ideas justified the Alien and Sedition Acts,1 the Chinese Exclusion Act,2 the enactment of new deportation grounds in 1917,3 and the adoption of national origin quotas in 1924.4 These ideas continue to operate today and influence law and policy. For example, on January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump declared that the entry of Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan, Somalian, Sudanese, Syrian, and Yemeni citizens along with Syrian refugees to the United States is “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”5 Two days † Charles J. Merriam Distinguished Professor of Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. I would like to thank the participants in the 2015 Global Migration, Structural Inclusion and Citizenship Education Across Nations Conference, 2015 Law & Society Annual Meeting, 2014 Immigration Law Teachers Workshop, and the University of Richmond Emroch Faculty Colloquy for comments, advice, and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Migration to the United States
    TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Temporary Migration to the United States: Nonimmigrant Admissions Under U.S. Immigration Law U.S. Immigration Report Series, Volume 2 About this Edition This document discusses nonimmigrants and the laws and regulations concerning their admission to the United States. The purpose of this report is to describe the various nonimmigrant categories and discuss the policy concerns surrounding these categories. Topics covered include: adjustment of status, temporary workers, work authorization, and visa overstays. The United States welcomes visitors to our country for a variety of purposes, such as tourism, education, cultural exchange, and temporary work. Admittance to the United States as a nonimmigrant is intended to be for temporary visits only. However, some nonimmigrants are permitted to change to a different nonimmigrant status or, in some cases, to permanent resident status. This report provides an overview of the reasons for visiting the United States on a temporary basis and the nexus between temporary visitor and permanent resident. Nonimmigrants – v. 06.a TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES: NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Research and Evaluation Division U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy January 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by staff in the Research and Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, under the direction of David R. Howell, Deputy Chief, and Lisa S. Roney, Director of Evaluation and Research. The report was written by Rebecca S. Kraus. The following staff made significant contributions in the research for and review of this report: Lisa S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Encyclopedia of American Immigration Table of Contents A Abolition movement Accent discrimination Acquired immune deficiency syndrome Adoption Affirmative action African Americans and European immigrants African immigrants Afroyim v. Rusk Alabama Alaska Albright, Madeleine Alien and Sedition Acts Alien land laws Alvarez, Julia Amerasian children Amerasian Homecoming Act American Colonization Society American Jewish Committee American Protectivist Association Americanization programs Angel Island immigration station Angell's Treaty Anglo-conformity Anti-Catholicism Anti-Chinese movement Anti-Defamation League Anti-Filipino violence Anti-Japanese movement Anti-Semitism Antimiscegenation laws Antin, Mary Arab immigrants Argentine immigrants Arizona Arkansas Art Asakura v. City of Seattle Asian American Legal Defense Fund Asian American literature Asian immigrants Asian Indian immigrants Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance Asiatic Barred Zone Asiatic Exclusion League Assimilation theories Association of Indians in America Astor, John Jacob Au pairs Australian and New Zealander immigrants Austrian immigrants Aviation and Transportation Security Act B Bayard-Zhang Treaty Belgian immigrants Bell, Alexander Graham Bellingham incident Berger v. Bishop Berlin, Irving Bilingual education Bilingual Education Act of 1968 Birth control movement Border fence Border Patrol Born in East L.A. Boston Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Bracero program "Brain drain" Brazilian immigrants British immigrants Bureau of Immigration Burlingame Treaty Burmese immigrants C Cable Act California California gold rush Cambodian immigrants Canada vs. the U.S. as immigrant destinations Canadian immigrants Canals Capitation taxes Captive Thai workers Censuses, U.S. Center for Immigration Studies Chae Chan Ping v. United States Chain migration Chang Chan v. Nagle Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle Chicago Chicano movement Child immigrants Chilean immigrants Chin Bak Kan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Essay on Immigration Policy ______
    Background Essay on Immigration Policy _____________________________________________ National Origins Quota Act of 1924 The United States has debated immigration policy all the way back to its founding days. During periods of fear and tension the nation has often resorted to restricting immigration. One such example was the Immigration Act of 1924, which was signed into law on May 26, 1924 by President Calvin Coolidge. The aftermath of WWI featured both an economic recession and fears of communism. Restricting immigration seemed to make sense during this time of uncertainty. This law also established the principle of immigration quotas based upon a person’s nationality. It restricted the number of immigrants to the United States from a given country to 2% of that group’s population in the nation. The new quota system was based on records from the 1890 census instead of current population numbers. This calculation favored those people from North-Western Europe, ensuring that the majority of immigration visas would be issued to immigrants from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia, instead of those from Eastern Europe or other areas of the world. The law completely excluded Arab and Asian immigrants, which infuriated the nation of Japan. It also frustrated many American citizens, such as Representative Robert H. Clancy, a Congressman from Detroit, Michigan, who called the Quota Act, “a racially discriminatory and un-American” policy. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act) Immigration policy wasn’t closely examined again until after WWII. New legislation was introduced in 1952 by Democrats Pat McCarran and Francis Walter. This McCarran-Walter Act was officially named the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and had several provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform Symposium Report
    City and County of San Francisco IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COMMISSION Are We a Nation of Immigrants? Summary Report on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: San Francisco’s Role in Shaping National Immigration Policy June 2010 Since 1997, the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission (IRC) has been focused on improving the quality of life and civic participation of immigrants in the City and County of San Francisco. A third of all San Francisco residents are immigrants and nearly half of all residents speak a language other than English at home. The IRC recognizes the voice of these important contributors to San Francisco’s success. On November 9, 2009, the IRC, in partnership with the Office of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the American Immigration Lawyers Association- Northern California Chapter, and the San Francisco Office of Civic Engagement & Immigrant Affairs, presented a symposium on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: San Francisco’s Role in Shaping National Policy. The purpose of the Symposium was to hear from a panel of national experts on the role of local communities and jurisdictions in shaping policy and preparing for comprehensive reform. The following report includes the statements, perspectives and advice of immigration policy experts and the invited testimony of several individuals who have experienced numerous challenges with the U.S. immigration system. As our nation’s leaders begin the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform, it is the IRC’s hope that they remember the human faces and stories of millions of residents who have risked their lives seeking freedom and opportunity in America. This should be the basis for developing a fair and humane immigration system that works for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Complete List of Contents
    Contents Complete List of Contents . ix Publisher’s Note . xiii Contributors . xvii Accent Discrimination . 25 Affordable Care Act and Undocumented Immigrants . 27 African immigrants . 31 Afro-Caribbean immigrants . 39 Alien and Sedition Acts . 43 Alien land laws . 46 Amerasians . 49 American Jewish Committee . 53 Anglo-conformity . 54 Anti-Irish Riots of 1844 . 56 Arab American intergroup relations . 60 Arab American stereotypes . 65 Arab immigrants . 67 Ashkenazic and German Jewish immigrants . 75 Asian American education . 77 Asian American Legal Defense Fund . 82 Asian American literature . 83 Asian American stereotypes . 87 Asian American women . 89 Asian Indian immigrants . 93 Asian Indian immigrants and family customs . 98 Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance . 102 Assimilation theories . 105 Au pairs . 109 Bangladeshi immigrants in the United States . 110 Bilingual education . 114 Bilingual Education Act of 1968 . 119 Border Patrol, U .S . 125 Bracero program . 131 Brain Drain . 135 British as dominant group . 138 Burlingame Treaty . 141 v Cable Act . 145 California gold rush .. 146 Cambodian immigrants . 150 Canadian immigrants . 155 Celtic Irish . 159 Censuses, U .S . 160 Chicano movement . 165 Chinatowns . 170 Chinese American Citizens Alliance . 173 Chinese detentions in New York. 178 Chinese Exclusion Act . 180 Chinese exclusion cases . 184 Chinese immigrants . 186 Chinese immigrants and California’s gold rush . 190 Chinese immigrants and family customs . 194 Chinese Six Companies . 199 Citizenship . 203 Clotilde slave ship . 207 Coast Guard, U .S . 211 Coolies . 213 Cuban immigrants . 215 Cuban immigrants and African Americans . 219 Cuban refugee policy . 223 Cultural pluralism . 226 Demographics of immigration . 229 Deportation . 234 Discrimination . 240 Domestic Abuse as a Protected Category (Asylum) .
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Federalism: a Reappraisal
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\88-6\NYU603.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-NOV-13 12:34 IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: A REAPPRAISAL PRATHEEPAN GULASEKARAM† & S. KARTHICK RAMAKRISHNAN‡ This Article identifies how the current spate of state and local regulation is changing the way elected officials, scholars, courts, and the public think about the constitutional dimensions of immigration law and governmental responsibility for immigration enforcement. Reinvigorating the theoretical possibilities left open by the Supreme Court in its 1875 Chy Lung v. Freeman decision, state and local offi- cials characterize their laws as unavoidable responses to the policy problems they face when they are squeezed between the challenges of unauthorized migration and the federal government’s failure to fix a broken system. In the October 2012 term, in Arizona v. United States, the Court addressed, but did not settle, the difficult empirical, theoretical, and constitutional questions necessitated by these enactments and their attendant justifications. Our empirical investigation, however, discovered that most state and local immigration laws are not organic policy responses to pressing demographic challenges. Instead, such laws are the product of a more nuanced and politicized process in which demographic concerns are neither neces- sary nor sufficient factors and in which federal inactivity and subfederal activity are related phenomena, fomented by the same actors. This Article focuses on the con- stitutional and theoretical implications of these processes: It presents an evidence- based theory of state and local policy proliferation; it cautions legal scholars to † Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law. ‡ Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Chinese Exclusion Part 2 - House of Representatives Debates 1943 by Philip Chin
    The End of Chinese Exclusion Part 2 - House of Representatives Debates 1943 By Philip Chin The House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization reported favorably on the bill introduced by Representative Warren Magnuson, Democrat of Washington, to repeal Chinese exclusion laws. H.R. 3070 didn't propose wholesale removal of restrictions on Chinese immigration but a limited immigration quota of 105 persons of Chinese descent worldwide. 75% of these spots were set aside for persons born and resident to China. Most importantly for Chinese Americans the bill proposed to remove the bar to naturalized citizenship that had been in place since 1869. However, only a few Chinese were legally entitled to this naturalization provision as they had to be already lawful permanent residents of the United States. Just a handful of Chinese in America fell into this category because of the exclusion laws so this provision was essentially symbolic. The expressed fear of a flood of Chinese immigration by opponents of the bill were therefore groundless the report concluded. "The number of Chinese who will actually be made eligible for citizenship under this section is negligible. There are approximately 45,000 alien Chinese persons in the United States (continental, territorial, and insular). However, a large number of these Chinese have never been admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence, which is a condition precedent to naturalization and, therefore, many of this number would not be eligible for naturalization, not because of racial disability, but because they cannot meet statutory requirements of law. The number of Chinese who will be made eligible in the future, in addition to those already here, will of necessity be very small because the quota for China is limited to 105 per annum as provided in section 2 of the bill." The report glossed over the racist origins of the exclusion laws, claiming that they had been the result of economic factors that had changed since 1882.
    [Show full text]