The Immigration Battle in Context: A Look at Past Nativist Movements

Alabama has been in the news as of late because of its harsh new immigration law. The state has touted its law as the strictest in the nation. Other states have passed similar legislation, including Arizona, with its infamous SB 1070. Most proponents of these laws cite economic and security concerns as the primary reasons for their support. Yet it is impossible to extract the racial component that accompanies the latest anti-immigrant push. Pat Buchanan is still on cable television talking about the dwindling white population. Hate crimes against Latinos are on the rise. And the use of “illegal” as a noun and not an adjective might as well be an epithet.

Let's put aside the legality of current state laws: forget the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government plenary power over immigration policy, and that any state immigration law that conflicts with the federal scheme is preempted. Let's try to put the current wave of state anti-immigration laws into historical context. These laws are part of an anti-Latino nativist movement. Before current opposition to Latino immigrants, there was a movement against Asian immigrants. Before Asians there was a movement against Irish, Germans, and Catholics. Today's movement is spurred by the same motivating factors as previous ones. In light of current developments, let's look at some past nativist movements to find parallels with the present conflict over Latino immigration.

Nativism is a close cousin of xenophobia. Nativist policies seek to defend the interests of “native-born” citizens against those of immigrants, nowadays undocumented immigrants. Nativism is fueled by various influences. In the U.S., these movements are most commonly in response to economic concerns, perceived threats to national security, and racial biases. When the economy is in a rut, or the nation is in the midst of military conflict, immigrants are singled out. They come to be described in negative generalizations during waves of nativism, and are eventually seen as a liability for the country. Nativists create stereotypes of different immigrant populations. These caricatures of certain groups create a false common knowledge that then fuels nativism. Immigrants become a perceived threat to the public. Citizens then demand government action. Nativist movements in turn gain political momentum and elected leaders respond with legislation that targets certain ethnic groups.

The first official nativist movement began in the 1830’s. The century of immigration was underway. Americans began to feel that the large influx of immigrants posed both an economic and security threat to the nation. Immigrants entering the country were generally working menial jobs for low wages. Some argued that immigrant workers were pushing down wages.

Many also began to emphasize the origins of new immigrants. The majority of immigrants during the early to mid-nineteenth century were from Ireland and Germany. Of the nearly eight million immigrants who entered the country between 1820-70, two-thirds were from these two countries. This was now the era of “new” immigration from Northern and Eastern Europe. Established Americans became concerned about the geographic and cultural differences between traditional immigrants and new immigrants from Europe.

New immigrants tended to live in ethnic communities with other immigrants of similar backgrounds. These ethnic enclaves helped new immigrants retain their language and customs while easing the process of adapting to life in the United States. Many Americans, however, saw these communities as a threat to national unity. A large segment of the new immigrants could speak very little or no English at all. Furthermore, they were seen as not fully integrating into the country by living in separate communities. Prominent nativist Lyman Beecher claimed that immigrants were “more familiar at Rome and Vienna, than with us.” Beecher and other nativists argued that immigrants shouldn’t be given the same rights, especially voting rights, because their customs couldn’t coexist with those of the American culture.

Most immigrants from Ireland practiced the Catholic faith. Anti-Catholicism was prevalent in America even before the second wave of immigration. The majority of Americans were Protestant. As a result of the increasing number of Roman-Catholic immigrants, an anti-Catholic sentiment emerged and take center stage in the nativist movement. Nativists argued that the values of the Roman Catholic Church and the republic of the United States were incompatible. Thomas Whitney claimed that “Republicanism is freedom: Romanism is slavery.” Samuel F.B. Morse argued that there was a great increase in Catholic institutions throughout the country. Nativists claimed that more Catholics were serving in public office. They believed that there was an international political conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church to change the makeup of the U.S. and influence elections.

A political movement emerged from the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment. The Know-Nothing, or American, Party became the prominent anti-immigrant voice in the 1850s and 1860s. The Know Nothings, like many nativists of this time, believed that “Catholicism was not compatible with the basic values that Americans cherished most.” The Catholic Church's supposed influence in America became a national security issue. Know Nothings believed that Catholics were attempting “to gain control of American politics and thereby impose their views upon the rest of America." Nativists also feared that if a war started between the US and a European country, immigrant communities would fight for Europe rather than the US. Immigrants from undesirable countries were also blamed for crime, in addition to low wages. 

The Know Nothing Party's primary goal was to preserve American nationality by curbing immigration and eliminating the role of Catholics and foreigners in high-ranking positions (especially public office). They claimed that Americans were being driven from their homeland by waves of foreign immigrants. By modifying immigration and naturalization laws, foreign influence in politics could be reduced while assimilation would be induced. Anti-immigrant forces believed that stricter immigration laws would create a national identity. Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790 to increase the numbers of residency needed to gain US citizenship to 5 years. The 1798 Alien Act gave the President the power to remove any immigrants deemed to be a threat to national security. Know Nothings even tried placing a 21-year restriction before new immigrants could gain the right to vote.

The Know Nothing Flag

The second nativist movement was focused on Asian immigrants. Many Chinese began to immigrate into the US to satisfy the country’s labor needs. As their numbers increased, stereotypes about Chinese began to take root. Movements to restrict Chinese immigrants rights began soon thereafter. 

Americans' growing hostility to Chinese immigrants was part of the overall racializing of America. Pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy were introduced. Many nativists embraced Johann Frederich Blumenbach’s theory of the five categories of race: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. The eugenics model was based on the belief “that intelligence, morality, and other social characteristics were permanently fixed into race.” These theories eventually led to a pyramid of racial superiority. Whites (Caucasians) were at the top, with all other races below. Also, the depictions of immigrant cultures (exotic people) at US World’s Fairs (Columbian Exposition, St. Louis World’s Fair) helped to fuel stereotypes in America. 

There were two prevailing factors that led to the restriction of Chinese immigrants. First, Americans believed that Chinese were not fit for US citizenship. The increase in Chinese immigration posed a threat to what nativists saw as the preferable ethnic construction of America: “a white nation descended from Europe.” The Naturalization and Citizenship Act of 1790 set the tone for future immigration policy. The words were clear: citizenship was liberally granted to “all free white persons.”

Second, many believed that Chinese workers were stealing jobs from Americans and pushing down wages. Like German and Irish immigrants, Chinese were seen as a cheap source of labor. Many nativists believed that Chinese and other Asians were used to living on very little, and therefore willing to accept very low wages for their labor. This, however, presented an economic conflict. America was labor scarce during this period. Chinese laborers were an integral part of important U.S. industries. They satisfied US labor needs in the west's agricultural industry, as well as the mining industry in the midwest. In fact, Chinese workers made up ¼ of the California's workforce in the 1870s. Yet the nativists' public outcries led to congressional action. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 eliminated almost all Chinese immigration to the U.S. In the two years after the Exclusion act was passed, Chinese immigrants went from over 30,000 to just 3,000. 

The Chinese Exclusion act was the first law passed to limit Asian immigration to the U.S. It prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the country. The Act was certainly motivated in part by economic concerns. Yet racial undertones continually accompanied the economic justifications. It was the first piece of federal legislation to exclude a specific nationality. Samuel Gompers said in 1908 that the Chinese “will work so cheaply as to bar off all efforts of his competitor.” In the same breath, Gompers claimed that Chinese labor wasn’t even fit for white workers. During the debate over the Chinese Exclusion Act, Hon. James G. Blaine argued that “the Asiatic can not go on with our population and make a heterogeneous element.” Cultural disparities once again fueled notions of white superiority.

Congress eventually limited immigration from the rest of Asia through quotas. Immigration quotas were enacted to preserve the racial composition of the U.S. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 sought to restrict immigration by country based on the 1890 U.S. Census. This census, unlike the three censuses thereafter, ensured that most immigrants entering the U.S. would be from preferable European countries. Many nativists argued for the restrictions to prevent “new immigration that threatened to lower the standard of living and dilute the 'basic strain' of the American population." In other words, quotas would keep America white. All peoples of East and South Asia were barred from gaining citizenship after the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act.

As Asian labor was virtually eliminated, worker shortages arose, especially in the agricultural sector. The 1924 Act placed no restrictions on Mexican immigration. Thus, Mexican workers came to fill America's labor needs. Yet as the Mexican population became more prevalent, nativist opposition mounted.

Like previous nativist movements, Americans began to blame Mexicans for depressing wages and taking jobs from Americans. They also saw the new immigrant population as a threat to ethnic composition that the 1924 Quota Act sought to preserve. Mexican population doubled from 1920 to 1930. As hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the country, opposition took hold and demanded that the government respond to such concerns. 

Foreign contract labor was banned in the US since 1885 because of its connotations with slavery. The ban, however, was lifted to implement the Bracero Program (1942-1964). This program permitted companies to contract Mexican laborers to work in the US: it established a temporary worker program. The Bracero Program essentially created a new second-class citizenry of Mexican laborers in the U.S.: they had no rights of a U.S. citizen, yet provided great benefits to our economy.

Congress enacted the The Bracero Program in hopes of supplementing the country's labor needs in a controlled manner and curbing illegal immigration from Mexico. The federal government also began deporting and “assisting in the repatriation” of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans. They called this “Operation Wetback.” Not only were illegal immigrants deported during this undertaking. Many American citizens were forced back to Mexico to escape the hostile environment they face in the US. Moreover, the Bracero Program didn't reduce illegal immigration. It actually promoted it. Employers simply bypassed the regulations (wage requirements and working conditions) set forth in the program by hiring undocumented workers.

I posted this historical overview so that we can put our current debate over Alabama's state law into context. Legislators' arguments for passing these bills are not new. They use the same justifications that have been used over and over: economy, security,  and racial purity. And, if we continue on our current path, we will be regretting these laws just the same. 

But the nativist march goes on. Let's see where it takes us.