[On February
5, 1917 Congress passed the influential and exclusionary Immigration
Act of 1917. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy that Act and other stages
across the history
of immigration laws, leading up to a weekend post on where our laws and
narratives stand in 2020.]
On how my
thoughts about a foundational, exclusionary law have evolved over time.
It’s quite
fitting that the
7th post I wrote for this blog focused on the 1882 Chinese
Exclusion Act and its aftermaths; I don’t know that any historical topic has
been more consistently central to my AmericanStudying career, as illustrated by
that post, my third
book, the chapter on the Chinese Exclusion Act era in my
recent fifth book, this other online
piece, these two
early posts
for my Saturday Evening Post
Considering History column…well, you get the idea. There have been various
through-lines across all those pieces and works, but I’d say the most prominent
and consistent can be found in the very first sentence of that November 2010
blog post: “There are a couple of particularly
salient reasons why I wish we included the Chinese Exclusion Act a lot more
fully in our national narratives.” If my number one, overarching goal for my
AmericanStudies public scholarship is expanding our collective memories (which,
spoiler alert, it is), then adding the Chinese Exclusion Act to those memories
has been my most longstanding case study toward that objective.
Which makes it
ironic, but also I hope exemplary, that my own thinking about the Act has
significantly shifted over this decade of remembering and analyzing it. At the
time of my Chinese Exclusion Act
book, and throughout the 18 months or so of book
talks that followed it, I focused in many ways on the Act as the first national
immigration law, and as one that helps us understand the fundamentally xenophobic
and exclusionary nature of those laws as they developed. I also made the case
in those talks that the Exclusion Act era (which could be seen as extending from
1882 through the 1965 Immigration Act, about which more in a few days) was a
blip on the radar screen, the one period in American history when our national
policies sought (more and more over those decades, especially after the 1920s Quota
Acts turned exclusion into the overarching frame for national immigration
policy) to limit our foundational diversity rather than extend and amplify it. Given
that all Americans over 50 (at that time; over 60 now) grew up in that era,
that frame seemed to me also to help us understand why so many older Americans
use phrases like “I want my country back” (and, now, “Make America great again”)
as a shorthand for exclusionary visions of the nation.
I think there’s
still a lot of value to those different frames for and analyses of the
Exclusion Act and its era, but over the last few years my perspective on the
law’s central goals has changed quite a bit. Of course the law was intended to
affect future arrivals, indeed to make it impossible for immigrants from China
(and then, gradually, other Asian nations as well, leading up to the 1917 law I’ll
discuss tomorrow) to come to the United States. But I would now argue that it
was much more fully intended to affect current residents of the US, indeed to
destroy the longstanding, deeply rooted, and sizeable Chinese American
community (there were more than 102,000 Chinese Americans documented on the
1880 Census, the first to ask about national origin). As I traced in this
Saturday Evening Post column,
numerous aspects of the Exclusion Act and its follow-up laws can only be
understood through the lens of that goal: stripping citizenship from those
Chinese Americans who had been able to gain it; making it illegal for Chinese
Americans to leave the US and then attempt to re-enter; requiring all Chinese
Americans to go through the onerous and un-Constitutional step of carrying “residency
papers” at all times or risk arrest and deportation. These were steps intended
to destroy an existing community, and defining the Exclusion Act’s central purpose
thusly makes it even more foundational as an exclusionary, white supremacist
document.
Next law and
stage tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you
think?
No comments:
Post a Comment