We are told…
Except
for Native Americans, we are all immigrants or children of immigrants.
True enough – true as well for the “Native Americans.” By the way, open borders didn’t work out so
well for this group.
The
entire history of the United States, until recently, is one of open borders and
open immigration.
We are also told. I
would like to examine the validity of this statement.
Before beginning, I offer a very interesting
time-lapse map, depicting immigration into the United States; each dot
represents 10,000 people. Visualizing this
history will tell you much about what it meant to be a country of immigrants;
more specifically…immigrants…from where? When? What
changed? Why? The map raises important questions.
To be more complete, I should include social / welfare
legislation in this post as I believe it to be an important part of the story. But I am already at 2900 words, and I think
most readers understand that this grew significantly during the twentieth
century and especially during the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great
Depression and more so during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson in the
mid-1960s. Further, the differences in open
and available land should be considered.
Unless otherwise noted, sources are identified at the end of
this post.
Colonial Era to 1790
The period from 1607 – 1775 marks the longest sustained period
of meaningful immigration in North American history. Not counting slaves (who clearly did not come
by choice), virtually all of the immigrants were of northern European and
Protestant origin. Large numbers came as
indentured servants (perhaps half or more), with passage paid in exchange for a
fixed term of indenture to the sponsor; not all indentured servants came
voluntarily.
By 1790, it is estimated that there were 950,000 immigrants,
of which 360,000 were from Africa. Of
the 590,000 remainder, 425,000 were from Britain and almost 110,000 were from
Germany or the Netherlands. The origins
of most of the rest are unknown, but presumed to be from Northern Europe.
The population by 1790 is estimated to be 3.9 million, of which
757,000 were from Africa. Of the
remaining 3.15 million, almost 2.6 million were of British descent. About 370,000 were of German and Dutch
descent; most of the rest are of unknown origin, presumed to be from northern
Europe.
Great Britain exported its convicts to America – about 50,000
up to the end of the Revolution (Australia got them thereafter).
1790 to 1849
From the beginning of the Revolutionary War until about
1830, there was little immigration. There
was a meaningful emigration from the
US to Canada; about 75,000 British loyalists, but also some German farmers. The year 1815 might mark the low point in
terms of the percentage of the population that was foreign born – perhaps 1%. Even by 1830, this percentage was estimated
at only 2%.
Immigration in some quantity resumed beginning around
1830. The list of countries is similar: Britain,
Ireland, Germany, and other parts of Central Europe as well as Scandinavia. The numbers from 1831 – 1840 are about
207,000 Irish, about 152,000 Germans, 76,000 British, and 46,000 French.
From 1841 – 1850, there were about 1,713,000 immigrants,
including at least 781,000 Irish, 435,000 Germans, 267,000 British, and 77,000
French. By 1850, the population was
about 90% native born; the percentage of the population that was Catholic
doubled in this period – from 5% to 10%.
The Mexican-American War and subsequent treaty brought about
70,000 formerly Mexican residents into New Mexico and California; the
California Gold Rush brought immigrants from Latin America, China, Australia,
and Europe.
There was a rise of anti-Catholicism in the later part of
this period – against German and Irish Catholic immigrants. Thus was born the Native American Party (“Native
American” having a meaning different than what we ascribe to it today), renamed
the American Party – but commonly known as the Know Nothing Party – as its members
would claim to “know nothing” when asked about their affiliation.
Immigration during the first five
years of the 1850s reached a level five times greater than a decade earlier.
Most of the new arrivals were poor Catholic peasants or laborers from Ireland
and Germany who crowded into the tenements of large cities. Crime and welfare
costs soared. Cincinnati's crime rate, for example, tripled between 1846 and
1853 and its murder rate increased sevenfold. Boston's expenditures for poor
relief rose threefold during the same period.
— James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of
Freedom, p. 131.
The party gained significant results:
The results of the 1854 elections
were so favorable to the Know Nothings, up to then an informal movement with no
centralized organization, that they formed officially as a political party
called the American Party, which attracted many members of the now nearly
defunct Whig party as well as a significant number of Democrats. Membership in
the American Party increased dramatically, from 50,000 to an estimated one
million plus in a matter of months during that year.
Massachusetts was a stronghold; a chapter was formed in
California, against the rise of Chinese immigrants; the “know nothing” mayor of
Chicago banned immigrants from city jobs.
The party soon lost momentum, as the issue of slavery
divided the country far more than the issue of (primarily) white immigration.
1850 – 1900
In this period, the largest portions of immigrants were from
Germany, Ireland and Britain; French Canadians were also represented. Shortly after the Civil War, some states
began to pass their own immigration laws; the Supreme Court struck this down in
1875, stating the immigration was a federal issue. That same year, the Federal government passed
the Page Act – aka the Asian Exclusion Act.
This was followed in 1882 by the Chinese Exclusion Act. The names of these acts are descriptive of
the content.
In 1892, Annie Moore was the first immigrant processed at
Ellis Island. Call it a wall – a big,
beautiful wall!
1900 – 1915
The first years of the new century saw an increase in
immigrants from Sweden, Norway, Poland, and Italy. There were also immigrants from Lebanon and
Syria – primarily Christian, but also Jews and Muslims. There were also about 2 million immigrant
Jews from Russia.
The peak year of legal immigration was 1907, with about 1.3
million entering the country.
New Laws
The twentieth century saw an explosion of laws regulating
and restricting immigration:
Immigration Act of
1917
…was the most sweeping immigration
act the United States had passed until that time. It was the first bill aimed
at restricting (as opposed to regulating) immigrants, and marked a turn toward
nativism. The law imposed literacy tests on immigrants, created new categories
of inadmissible persons, and barred immigration from the Asia-Pacific Zone.
Emergency Quota Act
of 1921
…restricted immigration into the
United States. Although intended as temporary legislation, the Act "proved
in the long run the most important turning-point in American immigration
policy" because it added two new features to American immigration law:
numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing
those limits. These limits came to be known as the National Origins Formula.
The Immigration Act
of 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 as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the
Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was
primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and
Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews. In addition,
it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the
immigration of Arabs and Asians.
Equal Nationality Act
of 1934
This law allowed foreign-born
children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before
the age of 18 and had lived in America for five years to apply for American
citizenship for the first time.
Tydings–McDuffie Act
The act reclassified all Filipinos,
including those who were living in the United States, as aliens for the
purposes of immigration to America. A quota of 50 immigrants per year was
established.
Nationality Act of
1940
The law revised "the existing
nationality laws of the U.S. into a more complete nationality code"; it
defined those persons who were "eligible for citizenship through birth or
naturalization" and clarified "the status of individuals and their
children born or residing in the continental U.S., its territories such as
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Panama and
the Canal Zone, or abroad." The law furthermore defined who was not
eligible for citizenship, and how citizenship could be lost or terminated.
McCarran Internal
Security Act
The Internal Security Act of 1950,
64 Stat. 987 (Public Law 81-831), also known as the Subversive Activities
Control Act of 1950 or the McCarran Act, after its principal sponsor Sen. Pat
McCarran (D-Nevada), is a United States federal law. Congress enacted it over
President Harry Truman's veto.
The Act required Communist
organizations to register with the United States Attorney General and
established the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate persons
suspected of engaging in subversive activities or otherwise promoting the
establishment of a "totalitarian dictatorship," either fascist or
communist. Members of these groups could not become citizens and in some cases
were prevented from entering or leaving the country. Citizens found in
violation could lose their citizenship in five years.
The Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952
…also known as the McCarran–Walter
Act, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12),
governs immigration to and citizenship in the United States.
The Act defined three types of
immigrants: immigrants with special skills or relatives of U.S. citizens who
were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions;
average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; and
refugees.
The Act allowed the government to
deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and
also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country.
The back-and-forth of this act is worth considering:
President Harry Truman, a Democrat,
vetoed the Act because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and
discriminatory. His veto message said:
Today, we are
"protecting" ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by
immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. ... We do not need to be
protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to
stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western
Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to
welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope,
be free again....These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of
carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924
law.
In no other realm of our national
life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are
in this field of immigration.
Truman’s last sentence is worth reading twice – immigration restrictions
are part of the national life and history of the nation.
Truman's veto was overridden by a
vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.
Speaking in the Senate on March 2,
1953, McCarran said:
I believe that this nation is the
last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be
overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light
of humanity will be extinguished.
There are many Americans who would nod in agreement with
this statement today.
Operation Wetback
That’s the real name!
The program was implemented in May
1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell and utilized special tactics to
deal with illegal border crossings into the United States by Mexican nationals.
Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1965
Until 1965, immigration was virtually all European and all
Christian, with a minor portion from the Americas (to include a good amount
from Canada). This changed with this
act.
The Immigration and Nationality Act
of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also
known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending
the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since
the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York
proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator
Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.
The Hart–Celler Act abolished the
quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration
policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy
which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans. In removing racial and
national barriers the Act would significantly, and unintentionally, alter the
demographic mix in the U.S.
I suspect some would disagree with that “unintentionally”
part.
The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked
a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws
restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern
and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.
Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986
The Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known
as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6,
1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The
Act:
…required employers to attest to
their employees' immigration status; made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal
immigrants knowingly; legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal
immigrants, and; legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States
before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously…
Conclusion
America
has always been hostile to immigrants
Look, I didn’t write that – it comes right from the Washington
Post:
You know Ellis Island, the place
textbooks portray as the welcoming ward for generations of dreamers?
“We think of Ellis Island as this
great monument to immigration. It’s really the monument to border control,”
says Morris Vogel, president of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, which
painstakingly reconstructs the squalor and ambition of 19th- and 20th-century
immigrants. Ellis Island was, Vogel notes, “the first wall,” often used to
repel undesirables.
Border control…in 1892!
But there is more:
Benjamin Franklin denounced the
scourge of “swarthy” German immigrants who refused to speak English, for
example.
“In the infancy of the country,
with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to
naturalization; but our situation is now changed,” [Alexander Hamilton] wrote
in 1802.
My Conclusion
One could say that the United States (and the colonies
beforehand), were reasonably “open borders” until the 1870s, with the more
sweeping regulation beginning in the 1910s.
One could also say that virtually all of the immigration until this
point was from Europe, and the bulk of this from northern and western
Europe. One could also say that the vast
majority of immigrants were Christian – not to minimize the conflicts between
Protestants and Catholics.
One could also say that the bulk of the immigrants had to
find their own way – both to get to the country and to carve out a living once
they arrived. This would exclude, of
course, slaves and those indentured servants brought by force – call them white
slaves, albeit typically not for life.
One could say that this fundamentally changed in 1965 – both
in immigration patterns and in social and welfare legislation.
One could say that the United States had reasonably open
borders as long as immigrants were white and Christian; one could say that
legislation began to grow meaningfully when this began to change – in other
words, people grew less fond of open borders when those who immigrated didn’t look
and act like them.
One could say that everything changed beginning in 1965, due
to government forced and subsidized immigration.
One could say all of these things because these are
factually based.
One could not say that the history of the United States is
one of open borders and free immigration; this would be inaccurate without the
following clarification: it was
reasonably true when immigrants were primarily white and Christian; it ceased
to be true as this changed.
Epilogue
But…but…but…we are all children of immigrants (again, with
the one reasonable exception).
True. Exponential
math explains why this must be so. For
example, from the 24 males on the Mayflower that had children, 35 million today claim to be
descendent. In other words, the
statement is meaningless for a country that was virtually unpopulated 425 years
ago.
Sources:
For some reason, this post inspires me to listen to this great song once again:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/omLysJCkP8E
the government spends $18 billion on stopping immigration
ReplyDeleteThat the whole thing is a massive flop is revealed by the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country,
Meanwhile, this is a huge debate among people who otherwise swear fealty to “limited government.” Many people who claim to want freedom seem to have no problem with the implications of a closed-border policy: national IDs, national work permits, non-stop surveillance, harassment of all businesses, a “papers please” culture, mass deportation, tens of billions in waste, bureaucrats wrecking the American dream, broken families, the rights of Americans and foreigners transgressed at every turn.
The more you look into the research, the more these objections fall away. Immigrants cause less crime than natives. Immigration does not cause unemployment. Immigrants don’t consume more public benefits than natives; in fact, they use fewer. Indeed, they have kept Social Security afloat, even though they will never get a dime from the system. They don’t love liberty less: they poll in as more libertarian. Indeed, every one of these and other claims in Trump’s immigration policy paper are patently wrong.
Apparently, the facts don’t matter. And as for humane values and human rights, forget it. Immigration restriction is a fundamental attack on the rights of at least two parties: the person who wants to employ someone currently outside the border and the person who wants to come work. It’s a thuggish interference with an economic exchange, like any other arbitrary restriction on trade.
https://fee.org/articles/why-open-borders/
I write a post about the history - do you take exception to any of this? Because your comment is completely off topic.
DeleteIt is telling when one doesn't want to deal with the subject at hand that he changes the subject.
As to your comment, all strawman arguments, at least when it comes to this author.
Now, if I have the history wrong, I would welcome links to more accurate information.
your historical examples are right no comment on that.
Deleteit looks to me your position is this:
hey we fuck up, we have welfare programs which are magnet for immigrants to come here. Do not blame us blame immigrants, it is their fault. Put walls and do not let any one in. Also employ bunch of bureaucrats to enforce this law.
Well over time no one will come legally ( black market ), and this bureaucrats will need to find another job ( ha,ha,ha ) ... no they will not, they will use this power to stop and harass local people going out.
"it looks to me your position is this:"
DeleteOn what factual basis do you make this statement? Be specific, quit making things up.