Early immigration laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924, were intended to “to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity.” That is, they were openly racist and aimed at limiting the immigration of non-whites. Immigration was revised in 1952 and then again in 1965. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act changed the quota system and removed many of the racial barriers that had marked immigration since the 1920s.
As social norms changed after the 1960s, open racism became largely unacceptable, and most racists switched to coded language and dog whistles. Openly justifying immigration policy based on race became and remains problematic. As such, the narrative changed from preserving the homogeneity of the United States against the threat of non-whites to the narrative of protecting American jobs and protecting Americans from crimes. After 9/11 a new narrative was added, that of protecting Americans from terrorists.
The election and re-election of Donald Trump saw a return of the classic racist narrative. While the mainstream narrative is still focused on crime and economics, white nationalists openly express their fears they will be replaced by non-whites. Sometimes this is dressed up as concerns about culture, but often the white nationalists are honest in their racism. Mainstream politicians, at least for now, still use coded language and dog whistles. Although the code is much more open and the dog whistles much louder. While those ignorant of history might mistake this as something new in American politics, it is a return to its roots. Some would even argue that the core of these polices has always been racist, but the racism has been obscured.
It could be objected that while racism might have been a factor in the past, it does not influence current immigration and border policy. After all, some might contend, those pushing for stronger border control and tighter restrictions on immigration claim their goals are to reduce crime and to protect the American economy. Put simply, the argument is that they are not racists. They are trying to address crime and the economic threat of migrants. It is just a coincidence that these policies target people who are not white. For this to be true, there would either need to be real problems that would be best addressed by these policies or those supporting the policies would at least need to believe this. As it is difficult to determine what people believe, I will focus on what is real.
While the narrative of the criminal migrant is an American myth, it does not match reality. Migrants are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to be victims of crimes relative to people born in the United States. But migrants do commit some crimes. As such, it can be argued that reducing the number of migrants would reduce the number of crimes and thus these policies are warranted. This would be an odd approach since it would also justify any way of reducing the size of the population based on reducing the number of crimes. Interestingly, this principle would justify public policies supporting birth control and abortion as having fewer people would entail fewer crimes. It could also justify population control in the form of legal restrictions on the number of children: if people have fewer children, then there will be less crime. My point is, obviously, not to argue for population control but to contend that restricting migration to reduce crime makes no more sense than imposing family size limits to reduce crime. While both approaches would reduce crime, they are not an effective or sensible way to address crime. It would be more effective to use social resources to directly address the causes of crimes.
The idea that migrants will steal jobs is a classic myth, but also generally unfounded. Overall, migrants are beneficial to the economy. It is true that migration is not entirely beneficial and there are negative economic consequences. However, the biggest threat American workers face is obviously not being replaced by migrants. It is far more likely that their jobs will be lost to automation, offshoring or changes in the economy. For example, coal workers have suffered not because of migrants taking their jobs, but because natural gas and renewable sources of energy are making coal increasingly obsolete. Ironically, efforts made to help the economy by restricting migration would be more likely to cause economic harm.
Given that the crime and economic arguments used to justify migration and border policy fail, there are few explanations left. One is that those making these arguments believe them, which entails they either have secret information or refusing to accept reality. A second explanation is that these arguments are covers for their real reasons. While speculating about motivations is problematic, the most plausible explanation is that they desire to continue the old racist policies. After all, if they had a good alternative argument backed by facts, then they would simply use that and there would be no need to lie.
I had nearly forgotten about the internment of Japanese residents of the USA during World War II. I did not learn about that in school in the 1960s either. This goes to my notion about situational ethics. More than that, it highlights what was then considered *national security*: we were at war, and, the Japanese; Germans and Italians were the enemy. Insofar as we learned little in school, of the Italian role in the war, other than the infamy of Mussolini, once again, I just don’t know. So, situational ethics, or, contextual reality? It was OK for abducted Chinese to build railroads in America, and die, forgotten…there was a time, in “THESE” great lands when the railroads(s) did not run…” Sure. Slavery was a fact of life, and, there was no term for racism…majestic mountains still stand against the sun, and, deep, dark forests—what is left of them—are too silent to be real. Yes. It only matters to me now in one sense. We have not gotten beyond it. I need not explain that. Have done so, betore. Am not “teaching” now. Psssst: never did.
The early statutes mentioned in this post were not facts I learned in school. Seems that in these United States, there have been changes-of-mind around whether we want the “tired and poor” and ” huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” mentioned in the old song. That was not always true, nor does it
appear to be true, as I write this. There was much omission and obfuscation in my early school years. And, depending upon where one lived and, accordingly, which school one attended, there were considerable differences in what one was taught: curricula, then, depended on social class. And this was intentional.
*Dumb hillbillies* were treated accordingly and placed in their places. Fortunately for my brother and I, we were both curious enough about a larger world and read a lot. Those facts helped become autodidactic. Big word and unknown to us in our early years. Ultimately, with some luck and personal initiative, we both were more successful than we were supposed to be. Our early scholastic environments did not help us, so we helped ourselves. I sometimes marvel at all that. Personal initiative is important. And overcoming environments.