This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/sunday-review/immigration-history-us.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Surprising Origin of Our Modern Nation of Immigrants | The Surprising Origin of Our Modern Nation of Immigrants |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| It was early evening when Michael Feighan arrived at the White House on May 7, 1965. A tall, dour Democratic congressman from Ohio, Feighan had an important meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson. | It was early evening when Michael Feighan arrived at the White House on May 7, 1965. A tall, dour Democratic congressman from Ohio, Feighan had an important meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson. |
| For months, Johnson and his aides had been hounding Feighan over his resistance to one of the president’s top priorities: passing the most consequential immigration bill in nearly half a century. The proposed law would abolish the 1924 National Origins Act, which put in place a system of ethnic quotas to codify America as a white, Protestant nation. The 1924 system greatly curbed the entry of Jewish, Italian, African and Asian immigrants while offering far more slots to immigrants from Northern Europe. | For months, Johnson and his aides had been hounding Feighan over his resistance to one of the president’s top priorities: passing the most consequential immigration bill in nearly half a century. The proposed law would abolish the 1924 National Origins Act, which put in place a system of ethnic quotas to codify America as a white, Protestant nation. The 1924 system greatly curbed the entry of Jewish, Italian, African and Asian immigrants while offering far more slots to immigrants from Northern Europe. |
| To Johnson, these quotas were nakedly unjust, akin to the Jim Crow laws restricting the political rights of black Americans in the South — another system that he was trying to dismantle. | To Johnson, these quotas were nakedly unjust, akin to the Jim Crow laws restricting the political rights of black Americans in the South — another system that he was trying to dismantle. |
| But Feighan was nervous. If the country was going to get rid of the quotas, he believed, it still needed a way to control its racial makeup. | But Feighan was nervous. If the country was going to get rid of the quotas, he believed, it still needed a way to control its racial makeup. |
| And so he offered a compromise: What if the country prioritized entry for people with family already in the United States? This way, Feighan reasoned, the country’s ethnic balance could change only so much. Since most Americans were white, their family members abroad would also be white. | And so he offered a compromise: What if the country prioritized entry for people with family already in the United States? This way, Feighan reasoned, the country’s ethnic balance could change only so much. Since most Americans were white, their family members abroad would also be white. |
| Johnson accepted the deal, which avoided scaring off pro-immigration liberals while easing the concerns of immigration restrictionists in Congress. Four months later, at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, the president signed the compromise into law as the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, abolishing the 1924 quotas. “This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he promised. “It does not affect the lives of millions.” | Johnson accepted the deal, which avoided scaring off pro-immigration liberals while easing the concerns of immigration restrictionists in Congress. Four months later, at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, the president signed the compromise into law as the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, abolishing the 1924 quotas. “This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he promised. “It does not affect the lives of millions.” |
| What happened over the following decades would surprise nearly everyone. The system of family preference that Feighan had insisted upon, hoping to sustain America’s white identity, instead opened the door to Asian, Latin American, African and Middle Eastern immigration at a scale never seen before. Demographers now predict that nonwhite Americans will outnumber white Americans within three decades. | What happened over the following decades would surprise nearly everyone. The system of family preference that Feighan had insisted upon, hoping to sustain America’s white identity, instead opened the door to Asian, Latin American, African and Middle Eastern immigration at a scale never seen before. Demographers now predict that nonwhite Americans will outnumber white Americans within three decades. |
| Ever since his inauguration, Donald Trump has been fixated on ending what anti-immigration conservatives call “chain migration” — the very system Feighan had seized on as a way to limit nonwhite immigration. Recently, Trump administration officials have seized on the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext for reshaping the immigration system. In April, Mr. Trump signed an executive order suspending family-based immigration for parents and siblings of citizens. | Ever since his inauguration, Donald Trump has been fixated on ending what anti-immigration conservatives call “chain migration” — the very system Feighan had seized on as a way to limit nonwhite immigration. Recently, Trump administration officials have seized on the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext for reshaping the immigration system. In April, Mr. Trump signed an executive order suspending family-based immigration for parents and siblings of citizens. |
| Many have denounced Mr. Trump’s policies as an aberration from the ideal of a “nation of immigrants” — a phrase popularized as the title of a pamphlet written by John F. Kennedy that became a best seller when it was published posthumously in 1964. But the United States has always struggled to balance different visions of what the country could or should be. | Many have denounced Mr. Trump’s policies as an aberration from the ideal of a “nation of immigrants” — a phrase popularized as the title of a pamphlet written by John F. Kennedy that became a best seller when it was published posthumously in 1964. But the United States has always struggled to balance different visions of what the country could or should be. |
| Whom should be let in and who can participate in civic life? Should the country allow new immigrants based primarily on economic and humanitarian need or based on applicants’ useful technical abilities or their family ties? Does the country’s ethnic makeup matter at all? | Whom should be let in and who can participate in civic life? Should the country allow new immigrants based primarily on economic and humanitarian need or based on applicants’ useful technical abilities or their family ties? Does the country’s ethnic makeup matter at all? |
| Since the passage of the 1965 law, the reunification of families has been a core principle of American immigration policy. From 2007 to 2016, about seven million out of the nearly 11 million immigrants who obtained green cards did so through family ties, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has vowed to “preserve the longstanding directive of our immigration system to reunite families and enhance our diversity.” | Since the passage of the 1965 law, the reunification of families has been a core principle of American immigration policy. From 2007 to 2016, about seven million out of the nearly 11 million immigrants who obtained green cards did so through family ties, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has vowed to “preserve the longstanding directive of our immigration system to reunite families and enhance our diversity.” |
| Even amid a resurgence of right-wing nationalism, this is a remarkable departure from the politics of 1965. Three months before his meeting with President Johnson, Feighan, the Ohio Democrat, appeared before an influential group called the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, which supported the 1924 quota system. | Even amid a resurgence of right-wing nationalism, this is a remarkable departure from the politics of 1965. Three months before his meeting with President Johnson, Feighan, the Ohio Democrat, appeared before an influential group called the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, which supported the 1924 quota system. |
| In his speech, Feighan attacked the quotas as “a myth” that failed to effectively preserve the country’s white status quo. He cited China, for instance, which had an official quota of about 100, but was sending more than 2,000 people a year into the United States because of various exceptions. And he vowed to eliminate the quota system altogether and replace it with something that would truly work to keep out nonwhite immigrants. | In his speech, Feighan attacked the quotas as “a myth” that failed to effectively preserve the country’s white status quo. He cited China, for instance, which had an official quota of about 100, but was sending more than 2,000 people a year into the United States because of various exceptions. And he vowed to eliminate the quota system altogether and replace it with something that would truly work to keep out nonwhite immigrants. |
| Supporters of the bill played down its potential to change the country, emphasizing instead that ending the quotas was simply the right thing to do — a symbolic measure to reflect that Jewish and Italian Americans had earned their rightful place in American society. Foreign policy experts in Washington argued that an explicit policy of racial discrimination made it harder to win allies during the Cold War. | Supporters of the bill played down its potential to change the country, emphasizing instead that ending the quotas was simply the right thing to do — a symbolic measure to reflect that Jewish and Italian Americans had earned their rightful place in American society. Foreign policy experts in Washington argued that an explicit policy of racial discrimination made it harder to win allies during the Cold War. |
| Secretary of State Dean Rusk testified before Congress that the quota system telegraphed to the world that “our standards of judgment are not based on merit” but rather on “bias and prejudice.” | Secretary of State Dean Rusk testified before Congress that the quota system telegraphed to the world that “our standards of judgment are not based on merit” but rather on “bias and prejudice.” |
| When asked about the potential effect of abolishing strict limits on Asian immigration, Robert Kennedy, then the attorney general, estimated there would be about 5,000 immigrants in the first year, “after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear.” | When asked about the potential effect of abolishing strict limits on Asian immigration, Robert Kennedy, then the attorney general, estimated there would be about 5,000 immigrants in the first year, “after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear.” |
| This underestimate was premised on the low number of Asian immigrants who were on the waiting list for an open slot under the existing quota system. But the lists were so short only because with such a small contingent of Asian immigrants allowed, few bothered to apply. | This underestimate was premised on the low number of Asian immigrants who were on the waiting list for an open slot under the existing quota system. But the lists were so short only because with such a small contingent of Asian immigrants allowed, few bothered to apply. |
| As Congress debated the reform bill, not everyone missed its potential impact. Sam Ervin, a segregationist senator from North Carolina, worried that if there were more immigration from Africa and Asia the country would “be drastically changed.” | As Congress debated the reform bill, not everyone missed its potential impact. Sam Ervin, a segregationist senator from North Carolina, worried that if there were more immigration from Africa and Asia the country would “be drastically changed.” |
| Strom Thurmond of South Carolina staked out an anti-immigration position in defense of the quotas. Every country, he argued, had the right to determine its own ethnic makeup: “The wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification — and no belief in racial or national superiority — any more than the wish to have one’s own children.” | Strom Thurmond of South Carolina staked out an anti-immigration position in defense of the quotas. Every country, he argued, had the right to determine its own ethnic makeup: “The wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification — and no belief in racial or national superiority — any more than the wish to have one’s own children.” |
| But the bill had strong support from pro-immigration liberals. And with immigration restrictionists like Feighan on board, it easily passed once it came to a vote. | But the bill had strong support from pro-immigration liberals. And with immigration restrictionists like Feighan on board, it easily passed once it came to a vote. |
| It would be years before the transformative impact of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act would fully reveal itself. But by 1971, more Asians were entering the country than Europeans. And these new immigrants were establishing roots across the country. New York’s Chinatown boomed as new arrivals rushed in. Two more Chinatowns arose in the city, one in the Flushing area of Queens and another in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood. | |
| Many Iranians, a large share claiming asylum after the overthrow of the shah in 1979, settled in California and Texas. Arabs gravitated toward the Detroit area and took jobs in the American auto industry. By 1989, the top 10 countries sending immigrants to the United States were all in the so-called third world, as immigration from Europe continued to taper. | Many Iranians, a large share claiming asylum after the overthrow of the shah in 1979, settled in California and Texas. Arabs gravitated toward the Detroit area and took jobs in the American auto industry. By 1989, the top 10 countries sending immigrants to the United States were all in the so-called third world, as immigration from Europe continued to taper. |
| Over time, the demographic effects of the 1965 law have accelerated. Five years ago, Pew Research estimated that without post-1965 immigration, the country would have been 75 percent white, 14 percent black, 8 percent Hispanic, and less than 1 percent Asian. Instead, it was 62 percent white, 12 percent black, 18 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian by 2015. | Over time, the demographic effects of the 1965 law have accelerated. Five years ago, Pew Research estimated that without post-1965 immigration, the country would have been 75 percent white, 14 percent black, 8 percent Hispanic, and less than 1 percent Asian. Instead, it was 62 percent white, 12 percent black, 18 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian by 2015. |
| Today, immigration restrictionists, including former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have praised the 1924 ethnic quotas while pointing to the 1965 law as unleashing far more change than the country desired. | Today, immigration restrictionists, including former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have praised the 1924 ethnic quotas while pointing to the 1965 law as unleashing far more change than the country desired. |
| The truth is few policymakers in 1965 anticipated the depth of demographic change the law would set in motion. But the law’s most ardent supporters were not confused about the principle behind it. They believed eliminating race-based immigration restrictions was the right thing to do. And they viewed it as part of a larger effort to expand civil rights — something inextricable from the never-ending fight for equality in America. | The truth is few policymakers in 1965 anticipated the depth of demographic change the law would set in motion. But the law’s most ardent supporters were not confused about the principle behind it. They believed eliminating race-based immigration restrictions was the right thing to do. And they viewed it as part of a larger effort to expand civil rights — something inextricable from the never-ending fight for equality in America. |
| “Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers,” Johnson said on the day he signed the bill. “From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.” | “Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers,” Johnson said on the day he signed the bill. “From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.” |
| Jia Lynn Yang is a deputy national editor at The New York Times and the author of the book “One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965,” from which this essay is adapted. | Jia Lynn Yang is a deputy national editor at The New York Times and the author of the book “One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965,” from which this essay is adapted. |
| The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. | The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. |
| Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. | Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. |