Chapter 17-Immigration View in the 1990s

I realize we've touched upon this subject in the previous chapter pertaining to immigration in the 1980s, but the topic has resurfaced in chapter 17. What I’m referring to are the multitude of efforts put forth by the U.S. to curb illegal immigrations, specifically when it comes to the Mexican border. The book talks about the ridiculous expenditures put forth towards this effort during the nineties. But also how the expensive fences and other fancy high-tech strategies implemented at key high-traffic ‘target’ points have ultimately backfired; the access points simply moved, and it has not served as the deterrent once hoped for.  And then of course, like we have discussed before when we watched the documentary on Mexican immigration, more people are staying and not returning home seasonally out of fear that they won’t be able make it back. And the tightened conditions have also resulted in terrible deaths (e.g. dehydration).  Something needs to change when it comes to the dynamics of not only our immigration policy, but our view on what it means to be an American—the perception of immigrants. As we've learned, it seems like overall the U.S. has been on an incredibly long trend of anti-immigration sentiment. Yes, it is not always as blatant as it was in the past, but indeed it prevails.

For example, when I reviewed George W. Bush’s 2001 immigration proposal (in the appendix), it paints a picture that the U.S. welcomes legal immigrants to this country, “with open arms”. But, is that really true?  It would, obviously, be uncool and politically incorrect to not act or say that the country is “welcoming” of immigrants. But considering the circulating anti-immigrant sentiment, those “welcoming” statements don’t feel totally authentic, even when referring to those who come here legally. Immigrants can be perceived mistakenly as a threat. I thought it was interesting when Daniels mentions the ‘roller coaster’ of public opinion regarding immigration and mentions something about what would happen during a recession. Well, we’ve hit a recession in recent years, that’s for sure. It just made me think about how much the fear of recession, the plethora of job loss that’s occurred, the foreclosure of homes, etc. has potentially played a role or contributed to anti-immigrant sentiment. (e.g. with less overall opportunity, why should immigrants be viewed favorably?)

   The other thing I found interesting about the proposal was that when the notion of combating illegal immigration is stated, it is quickly followed up with the mentioning of criminals, drug traffickers, and the like. And this connection occurs in two different places. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but this seems so deliberate; it’s almost as if illegal immigrants and criminals are lumped together in the same category. Regardless, to me there definitely seems to be a strong emphasis on “protecting our borders” and ‘catching’/deporting illegal immigrants, when perhaps all of that energy to keep those out could have been utilized to re-conceptualize and revamp our immigration policy—in a positive way that supports immigration and where that is the primary focus—not keeping out the wrongly-perceived “bad guys” .   

Chapter 16-Immigration & Nativism in the 80s

Although we previously discussed the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 in class, I thought I’d add to a few things to that discussion. For starters, it’s interesting to note the apparent shift in thought on immigration (with a focus on illegal immigration) that surfaced during the 1980s. While anti-immigration mentalities can be tracked obviously way back before the 1980s, the strength of those notions seems to wax and wane with the times; coming in waves or spurts depending on what’s going on nationally. Yet, the whole we-need-to-protect-our-borders mentality seemed to reemerge in the eighties and has lasted persistently since then. Look at more recent occurrences in Arizona, for example. The fear that the United States will become “flooded” with people, with illegal immigrants especially, definitely lingers as do nativist attitudes. And the need for ‘verifying’ citizenship—again fears based on notions that immigrants steal jobs away from U.S. citizens along with opportunity.

Part of what greatly contributed to and reinforced the immigration fears was the resurgence of nativistic ideas. I grew up in the eighties, but since I was a kid, I don’t remember much about what was going with immigration at the time. But feelings of superiority were obviously present. The book talks about several of the nonprofit organizations that aimed at immigration reform. Under the guise of seemingly innocent good-intended ideas, it seems the true agenda of these groups was to reinforce nativist ideas while maximizing the perceived threat of immigration in this country.  So, their goals were the same as the nativists from the past (i.e. there is a desire to cling on to the hope of a white European nation), but conveyed in a more subdued manner. I find it disturbing that there were numerous groups, too; not just one. The fact that there were several main established groups like this really seems to show just how prevalent nativist ideas were. And continue to be.  

It’s important to note that much of this nativism was really targeted at the Hispanic population, whereas in the twenties, nativism was aimed more at specific religious groups—Jews and Catholics. It’s interesting how throughout this country’s history,  nativism (along with the topic of immigration) has taken varying twists and turns, phases where one group was deemed negatively at one time only later to have a different target group.  I find this both sad and embarrassing. It’s contradictory to what many believe are our principle foundations. We are supposed to be an inclusive type of nation, welcoming, while promoting freedom. But old notions persist, just with a different twist….

On a slightly different note, I was surprised to learn about the numbers of Irish immigrants who wanted to come to the country and/or to become citizens during the 1980s, but couldn’t due to the cutoff date for amnesty. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were those who would have liked to have seen amnesty available to the Irish population, particularly since over the years, fewer white European immigrants migrate to the U.S. or even desire to. The book touches on how this actually has contributed to the anti-immigrant sentiment..

Thanksgiving

The way my family and I celebrate Thanksgiving, our traditions, have changed throughout the course of my life. Growing up my parents and I would head over to Pennsylvania to visit my father’s side of the family. There we’d engage in the typical “Thanksgiving” activities many people think of; we’d feast on turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, yams, green bean casserole, and pumpkin and pecan pie. One year we decorated the Christmas tree; Thanksgiving served as the defining day that helped kick start the Christmas season. Other foci of thanksgiving included being thankful for the blessings in one’s life and of course, the warm (hopefully) feelings of simply being together with family. Celebrating with my Pennsylvanian relatives was special because we didn’t get to see them all the time. Later my parents and I would have Thanksgiving at our house and different relatives would come over on the big day.  Although the location changed, the focus was the same—food, family, thankfulness and togetherness. Yet, for my family Christmas is a much bigger affair than is Thanksgiving and is thus, deemed more important by my family. Nowadays, I don’t see my family for Thanksgiving because of distance (I see them for Christmas however). So now I spend Thanksgiving differently every year and I spend it with other people’s families. And they usually have the same sorts of traditions my family has adhered to; the foci are the same as those described above.  It should be noted that the mentioning of pilgrims, Indians, or the like are never mentioned on the day. 

Chapter 14-"Model Minority"

Chapter 14 mentions Asian Americans as being referred to as the “model minority” in the United States.  This is based on figures that point to this segment of the population as being less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be incarcerated, while being more likely to obtain higher forms of education; to hold high-end jobs. While these figures are certainly positive, I have a problem with the term “model minority”. For one, I don’t believe such a concept should exist  because it provides a very narrow and judgmental definition about what an “ideal” group of people should be—viewed through a lens that doesn't take into account, it negates, the full scope of what various minority groups contribute to society (clearly their contributions aren't always about money, income, etc.). The term also seems to sort of indirectly assume or suggest that minorities have certain negative connotations; perhaps that they are often poor, unemployed, or “non-contributing” members of society. Thus, based on the figures described in the book, Asian Americans are deemed exceptional because they more closely emulate what is considered desirable.

Yet, the other problem I have with the “model minority” reference is that it doesn't account for the differences between and within various Asian American minority populations. Obviously, not all Asian Americans fall statistically into the “model minority”. The book mentions how, for example, there are still Chinese Americans who continue to struggle economically; some do not have high levels of education and many work in menial sorts of jobs. For these people, as it is with numerous other groups, finding a way out of this life can be extremely difficult; one has to continue to work in low-paying jobs to support oneself, but can never earn enough to put him/herself through college. A similar predicament could be said for the Vietnamese people. So, the “model minority” notion is inaccurate, misleading and offensive.

And I also find the term interesting, if not ironic, when considering the long history of discrimination aimed at the Asian American community. There was of course the Asian Exclusion Act and later the Japanese detention camps via World War II. Then because China was a part of the Allied powers, they were all of a sudden an “acceptable” group and the exclusion act was lifted—but then the discrimination tables turned, with a focus on the Japanese. And the Asian discrimination effort continued with other Asian groups. Take the Filipino people, for example. The anti-Chinese and anti-Japanese sentiments back lashed on them. The book talks about how they even endured violence and were considered barbaric because of the tribal history in the Philippines. Despite being American nationals, the Filipino people were denied citizenship rights for some time. So, when considering the huge amount of discrimination inflicted upon various Asian groups in the United States, it seems ironic that later these groups have become known as the “model minority”. Again, completely offensive…

Chapter 11-Japanese Camps

One part of chapter 11 that stood out to me pertained to the section on Asian Americans. The impact of World War II on Japanese Americans and their forced detention in concentration camps was most certainly huge—not to mention an unfathomable action and gross embarrassment in American history. These American-made-and implemented camps were the result of mass hysteria surrounding the presence of those of Japanese descent residing in the country; following, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. There are many aspects to this whole scenario that are worth acknowledging. For one, I was surprised to learn that the great majority of those sent to the camps were actually born in America—they were American citizens! It’s outrageous to think about how quickly, nonchalantly, and unabashedly these people were shipped off to concentration camps; no qualms whatsoever.  Clearly, the wartime climate combined with mass hysteria, propaganda, etc. was sufficient for such a terrible action to manifest. Secondly, the government helped “justify” their actions by claiming that it was in everyone’s best interest and safety. On the one hand, the idea was that Japanese Americans could not be trusted not to be potential spies, while on the other hand, the detention camps would help “protect” detainees. Interestingly, the only spies identified were Caucasians. (source:  http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm)  

I investigated the topic a bit, independent of the book, and was surprised to also learn that of those sent to camps, a whopping half of them were children. Indeed the idea of sending anyone to camps is despicable, but the thought of sending so many little kids seems to only compound the terribleness factor. And it’s scary to think about how fast the decision came about and how quickly the evacuation of those taken to camps occurred; most had about 48 hours’ notice. They weren't allowed to bring much with them either. They had to surrender their lives as they knew them; their homes, jobs, life. Conditions at these camps were dreadful, too.  Health care was poor, and people lived in barracks with communal facilities. I find this incredibly demeaning and enraging.

The government’s abrupt and propaganda/hysteria fueled decision to implement the camps is unsettling, partially because it makes one wonder if a similar sort of shocking decision could happen again.; not necessarily in the form of detention camps, but in some other way. Why couldn't it? At that time America’s principles of supposed equality and due process of law and such were in place; at least they were supposed to be or were superficially. Yet, in the uncertain, frightful times of war, rationality and rules (laws) can be turned upside down in a minute’s notice. Could something like this (not necessarily the same exact scenario) happen again?

On a final note, I found it interesting how World War II changed the situation of the Chinese in America. Once so strictly forbidden to become citizens, they were finally permitted to become ‘real’ immigrants with the relinquishing of the Chinese Exclusion Act. When considering this as well as other immigrant groups, it’s interesting to note how, through much of what we've learned so far, the government has had a less-than-noble way of selecting (or not selecting) the ratio of specific immigrant groups in this country. 

Chapter 10--Nativism

After reading chapter 11, I was struck by the section that discussed women (p. 281) and aspects related to their voting rights as well as other aspects related to immigration. I, like many of us, was aware of the Nineteenth Amendment, which (finally) gave women the right to vote. This was particularly important as well because the act of voting was such a huge part of what constituted being a full-blown citizen; an actual human being with a mind, with opinions. It seems like the right to vote acknowledged a woman as being independent of her husband—in the past husbands voted on behalf their wives. So, this was undoubtedly a major progression towards human rights, not just “women’s rights”.

So, many of us know this. But how often do we hear about the rights of early immigrant women? The book mentions how immigrant women and their rights were just not a priority for Congress. This is not entirely surprising considering the prevalent anti-immigrant attitudes of the time (or at the very least, the need-to-minimize-immigration attitudes).  And, of course, throughout much of history women were viewed as being inferior when compared to their male counterparts. Thus, if immigrants in general struggled for rights and acknowledgement in the United States, as women in general did, women immigrants (being from two minority groups) indeed must have additional struggles. And they also had no real voice that would have been heard by a discriminating society and male Congress.

I also took note of the Expatriation Act, which penalized American women who married foreign men by relinquishing their citizenship. Two things come to mind here: 1) Why should such an act be implemented in the first place, with the emphasis on punishing or minimizing a woman’s right to choose a marital partner?  2) Why wasn’t there a similar law outlining the result of an American man who married a foreign woman?  Interestingly, foreign women who married citizen men automatically became citizens. That was deemed acceptable. Yes, eventually, women were allowed to marry foreign men without facing the automatic resignation of their citizenship (although the Cable Act had other hidden agendas pertaining to Asians). Yet, it says something that the act was implemented in the first place. Women weren’t readily looked upon as having the same rights as men at the time. As it was and continues to be for other subjugated groups in society, rights seem to come with fights. It’s amazing to me just how slow-moving equal rights were for many of America’s minority groups.

As a nation, we have been so shockingly slow to progress and even when progression seems apparent on the surface, a closer look often reveals otherwise. Negative attitudes persist for decades. And so many groups have been ostracized.  I was surprised to learn, for example, about the anti-Catholic movements.  I had no idea about how churches and convents were at the brunt of some rather violent attacks (e.g. the burning of the Ursuline Convent).  And then there was a lot of propaganda surrounding “corrupt” priests making inappropriate sexual advances on nuns. Indeed, it’s amazing how inventive people can become in their hatred towards particular groups.   

Chapter 8-Divisions Within Groups

One element that really stood out to me after reading chapter 8, pertained to a couple of the divisions that developed within certain groups. For one, there were the predominantly Catholic Poles who did not feel as if they were a cohesive part of the American Catholic Church at the time. Based on the reading, it seems that they felt the American Catholic Church represented other Catholic groups/interests, such as the Irish, but not the Polish. Essentially, they very much felt excluded from the church and unequal; Polish priests were not chosen to be American bishops. This exclusion naturally angered the Catholic Polish community; forming a wedge. Eventually that wedge, that division, motivated the Polish of Pennsylvania to create the Polish National Catholic Church in 1904.

I find this division so fascinating. For much of colonial America, the general attitude towards Catholicism was negative, even feared (e.g. I think of the treatment of Catholic Irish immigrants). Although that outlook gradually changed, it seems that religion, in this case the Catholic faith, would or could have served as sort of magnet for those who subscribe to it. It could have served as a means of commonality amongst a variety of immigrant groups who share the Catholic faith. Yet, as in the case of the Poles, it seemed to do the opposite. It’s difficult to ascertain all of the factors that went into this division. On the one hand, the American Catholic Church obviously played their role by not permitting or at least choosing polish priests as clergy members. And also the book discusses how the Polish had a rather strong sense of “Polish American nationalism”; they were a proud people and sought to have a church of their own comprised of their own people, priests, and governing bodies.

Another division that caught my attention had to do with the German-American  Jewish population and their Eastern European counterparts. Here again were two different and distinct groups who shared the same religion (although it could also be said that in some respects they shared a culture/ethnicity as well, due to how “Jewish” is classified). Yet, the Eastern European Jews differed from the former already-established group. They were poor and came mostly from small little rural communities in Russia. They also came from a socialist country, which can influence a people’s mentality. Lastly, while the Eastern European Jews were of course Jewish, they belonged to distinct sects of the faith, including Orthodox and Reform. So, they were their own group, a group that seemed to have little in common with the German-American Jews in some key respects.

The German-American Jewish population, as the book delves into, looked down upon the Eastern European group for their differences. They felt embarrassed by them and poked fun at their Yiddish language. It seems they thought of them as a lower class version of the Jewish population. Perhaps even more shocking, to me, was how they feared the Eastern Europeans would inadvertently fuel the already present anti- Semitism in America. Despite the tensions, however, the two groups did unite to help fight anti-Semitism and to also aid other Eastern European Jews abroad.

  Divisions within broad groups of people albeit religious or otherwise have always and will probably continue to exist. Yet, despite realizing this, its occurrence continues to bewilder me; there are so many groups outside of one’s own that hate, look down upon, that feel animosity toward, tension, etc. that the last thing anyone seems to want is members within their own group to assume these sorts of feelings/attitudes. It seems logical that members of a group should support one; they should be allies. Yet this is difficult if not impossible when no one belongs to any one group. There are many groups that individuals belong to and that help define them. Sometimes the religious ones unite, yet other times it is the cultural, ethnic, or national ones that outshine the others.