Question Details

Answered: - Drawing on readings and lectures account for both the sour


Drawing on readings and lectures account for both the sources of continuity and change in U.S. immigration policy between the founding of the Republic and the mid-1920s. What were the initial conditions that shaped the path that immigration policy followed during this period? How and why did these initial conditions influence the outcome of later controversies, leading efforts to restrict immigration from Europe to fail during the 19th century, but leading efforts to restrict migration from China and Japan to succeed? What subsequent exogenous changes led to the restriction of migration from Europe in the mid-1920s?


chapter one

 


 

Introduction

 

Nineteenth century democracy needs no more complete vindica?

 

tion for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white

 

race the best portions of the new world?s surface, temperate

 

America and Australia. Had these regions been under aristocratic

 

governments, Chinese immigration would have been encouraged

 

precisely as the slave trade is encouraged of necessity by any

 

slave-? olding oligarchy, and the results would have been even

 

h

 

more fatal to the white race, but the democracy, with the clear

 

instinct of race selfishness, saw the race foe, and kept out the

 

dangerous alien. The presence of the negro in our Southern

 

States is a legacy from the time when we were ruled by a trans-?

 

oceanic aristocracy. The whole civilization of the future owes a

 

debt of gratitude greater than can be expressed in words to that

 

democratic polity which has kept the temperate zones of the new

 

and the newest worlds a heritage for the white people.

 

?? ssistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy Theodore Roosevelt, 1897

 

A

 


 

J

 


 

uan Bautista Alberdi, the leading Argentine intellectual

 

of the nineteenth century, famously observed that ?in the

 

Americas, to govern is to populate.?1 Open immigration policies in the nineteenth century allowed nearly anyone to walk off the

 

docks in Buenos Aires, Havana, New York, or Halifax. By the 1930s,

 

intellectuals from Argentina to Cuba had attached a qualifier to his

 

dictum: ?to govern is to populate well.?2 The governments of every independent country in the Americas created the legal and bureaucratic

 

machinery to cull only ?ethnically desirable? human stock from the millions yearning to breathe free.

 

The United States led the way in creating racist policies beginning

 

with its nationality laws in 1790 and its immigration laws in 1803. 3

 

In his book American Ideals written in 1897, just four years before he

 

became president, Theodore Roosevelt praised the democratic wisdom

 

of the United States and the other Anglophone settler societies for

 

selecting immigrants on racial grounds. Like most contemporary leaders,

 

Roosevelt believed that Chinese deserved exclusion because they were

 

racially inferior and incapable of governing themselves in a democracy.

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

2

 


 

Culling the Masses

 


 

He warned against the dangers of business interests attempting to attract

 

Chinese immigrants to work as indentured servants. In Roosevelt?s view,

 

Chinese were only one step up from the descendants of black slaves,

 

which plantation owners had imported to the detriment of free white

 

workers. Democracies needed racist policies to protect their citizens and

 

democracy itself.4

 

Roosevelt would have been astonished to learn that a century later, a

 

nearly universal consensus took it for granted that democracy and racism

 

cannot coexist. Racial selection of immigrants had become taboo. An

 

academic study of major liberal-? emocratic countries of immigration in

 

d

 

1995 declared that the ?boundaries of legitimate discussion of immigration policy are narrow, precluding argument over the ethnic composition

 

of migrant streams, and subjecting those who criticize liberal policies to

 

charges of racism.?5 The ubiquitous racist immigration and nationality

 

laws that Roosevelt cherished had all but disappeared, beginning with

 

Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Cuba in the late 1930s and early 1940s

 

and finally extending to the United States and Canada in the 1960s and

 

Australia in the 1970s. While immigration policies continue to have a

 

differential impact on particular national-? rigin groups, and discriminao

 

tory practices persist, the history of the region plainly shows that policies

 

have dramatically moved in the direction of non-? acial selection.

 

r

 

Why have governments throughout the Americas turned against select?

 

i

 

?ng immigrants by race and national origins? Why did that process take

 

longer to unfold in the most liberal-? emocratic countries? Against the

 

d

 

prevailing wisdom, we argue that the anti-? acist turn was not a product

 

r

 

of liberal ideology or democracy. Liberalism and the institutions of

 

democracy actually promoted racist immigration policies in nineteenth-?

 

century North America, as did populist politics in Latin America in the

 

early 1930s. The demise of racist immigration law began in Latin

 

America in the late 1930s, spread to North America in the 1960s, and

 

had become the norm throughout most major liberal-? emocratic cound

 

6

 

tries of immigration by the 1980s. By analyzing the interaction between

 

domestic and international politics in countries of immigration through?

 

o

 

? ut the Western Hemisphere, we unexpectedly find that geopolitical factors were the main drivers of the demise of racial selection, as externally

 

oriented elites overcame the public?s racist preferences.

 


 

Racist Democracy

 

What is the relationship between liberalism, democracy, and racism?

 

Simply put, democratic input?? hether in its liberal or populist variations??

 

w

 

historically has been linked to racist immigration policy in the Americas.

 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

INT R O D U C TI O N

 


 

3

 


 

The classical liberalism of the mid-? ineteenth century exalted the libn

 

erties of citizens and economic activity unhindered by the state. In its

 

ideal form, liberalism meant freedom of movement, exchange, and political participation. A representative system of government was the means

 

to foster these principles. Rights were inherent and equally applicable to

 

all autonomous moral individuals within nation-? tates.7 Liberalism

 

s

 

influenced the development of political institutions throughout North

 

America and Europe. It also shaped the aspirations of many Latin

 

American elites, even when liberal institutions were not as robust as in

 

the United States. The liberal doctrines of political participation expressed

 

in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and Constitution (1787),

 

the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1793), and the Spanish

 

C?diz Constitution (1812) had a broad impact in Latin America.

 

Constitutions across the region copied many of their institutions and

 

principles of liberty and self-? overnment.8 To be sure, there have been

 

g

 

many versions of liberalism in different historical contexts, and the

 

bundle of principles has sometimes loosened. Moreover, the term has

 

been appropriated by politicians to take on numerous meanings, such as

 

the widespread contemporary usage by U.S. conservatives in which liberal is a slur meaning statist, the opposite of the classical sense of the

 

term. Despite these conceptual difficulties with liberalism, comparisons

 

of political processes across many times and places require a common

 

analytical vocabulary. In this book, we think of liberalism in the classical sense following the set of principles articulated above. We take an

 

etic approach that uses liberalism as a standardized concept, rather than

 

an emic approach of charting the shifting meanings of liberalism as it is

 

used by politicians in different contexts.

 

Our perspective draws on political scientist Robert Dahl?s 1971 classification of regimes by levels of ?societal inclusiveness? and political

 

?contestation.? Inclusiveness refers to levels of participation by the public

 

in governance, typically through electoral or corporatist mechanisms.

 

Contestation refers to the openness of government to public demands.

 

Liberal democracy, what Dahl calls ?polyarchy,? is at one end of the

 

spectrum of political regimes, with a comparatively high level of inclusion through universal suffrage and openness to public contestation by

 

means of a representative form of government in which interest groups

 

can contest government decisions. The United States throughout most of

 

its history and Canada after becoming a self-? overning dominion have

 

g

 

been examples of liberal democracy. Corporatism or populism has a

 

high level of formal inclusion, but few avenues for contestation of central

 

government decisions. Whether the channeling of interests from below is

 

direct, as in the U.S. case, or managed by populists like L?zaro C?rdenas

 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

4

 


 

Culling the Masses

 


 

in Mexico and Get?lio Vargas in Brazil in the 1930s or Juan Per?n in

 

Argentina in the 1940s, the result is the selection of immigrants by ethnic

 

origins.

 

The gap between abstract principles of universal equality and the conjoined histories of liberalism and racism in practice has long puzzled

 

political observers. Analysts have explained this puzzle in three ways: as

 

a temporary anomaly linking two phenomena that are generally incompatible, as a case of inherently linked ideologies, or as an instance of

 

distinct traditions that happen to coincide in particular contexts.

 

A conventional, whiggish account is that liberalism and its expression

 

as democracy have experienced an evolution toward ethnic universalism

 

in the law. Liberal democracies, on this view, have purified themselves of

 

a ?resilient pre-? odern heritage? with the extension of equal rights from

 

m

 

propertied white men to all white men, then to ethnic minorities, and

 

finally to women. The presence of racism is an anomaly to be worked out

 

of the body politic.9 Scholars have also argued that incompatibility

 

between liberal democracy and racism extends to immigrant selection.

 

The end of ethnic selection in immigration law in liberal democracies

 

like the United States and Australia is attributable to the ?exigencies of

 

liberal stateness as such? and represented ?the unfolding of the internal

 

logic of the core values of liberal democracy.?10

 

In contrast, scholars with a critical perspective on race have argued

 

that the historical record tells a fundamentally different story, which

 

shows that liberalism and racism are inherently linked. Racism has been

 

the cultural frame that allowed inferences about people?s morality and

 

capacity for democratic participation from their appearance or cultural

 

practices. Political philosopher Charles Mills has argued that liberalism

 

is an expression of European/white Enlightenment ideals built on the

 

exclusion of nonwhites.11 The basic terms of eligibility for the liberal

 

social contract?? ho constitutes a political person?? ave been racially

 

w

 

h

 

determined. In political systems in which sovereignty is derived from

 

below, the only rationale for excluding parts of the population from

 

democratic participation is that they lack personhood and hence are

 

naturally incapable of self-? overnment. The notion that Catholics, south?

 

g

 

e

 

? rn and eastern Europeans, blacks, and Asians were not fit for democracy was used later to restrict their immigration. John Stuart Mill warned

 

that people characterized by ?extreme passiveness, and ready submission to tyranny? were unfit for representative government.12 Mill wrote

 

to the New York Times in 1870 to warn that Chinese immigration could

 

permanently harm the ?more civilized and improved portion of man??

 

kind.?13 Similarly, in Australia, the main architects of colonial liberalism

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

INT R O D U C TI O N

 


 

5

 


 

excluded Chinese based on the argument that only Anglo-? axons were

 

S

 

fit for self-? overnment.14 Scientific racism in France, Latin America, and

 

g

 

the United States offered an authoritative foundation for this exclusionary rationale. Historian George Fredrickson has argued that the rev?

 

olutionary emphasis on equal rights of citizens required ?special reason

 

for exclusion? and that ?the one exclusionary principle that could be

 

readily accepted by civic nationalists was biological unfitness for full

 

citizenship.?15 Building on Louis Hartz?s argument that U.S. liberalism

 

could only sustain anti-? lack racism by defining blacks as naturally infeb

 

rior, Paul Lauren argues that ?racism actually increased as democracy

 

expanded? in the nineteenth century. Under Jacksonian democracy, the

 

forced separation between Indians and whites increased, and the line

 

between blacks and whites hardened.16 Desmond King locates racial

 

selection of immigrants in liberalism as well.17 The link between scientific rationales for assessing political personhood reached its height

 

between the two world wars. Writing about this ?dark side of democracy? and nationalism, Anthony Marx and Michael Mann have shown

 

that even when elites acquiesce to demands from below by extending

 

citizenship rights to a widening circle of groups, they do so by maintain?

 

i

 

?ng exclusions against the most despised outsiders or by killing them.18

 

A third group of scholars argue that liberalism and racism are long

 

coexisting traditions with distinct rationales and that it is therefore difficult to reach a final judgment about the nature of liberal politics and

 

racial equality.19 Sociologist Benjamin Ringer has argued that the main

 

exemplar of liberalism in the Americas?? he United States?? as founded

 

t

 

w

 

on and perpetuated an ideological dualism between the American creed

 

and the racial creed. ?America?s historic treatment of its racial minorities

 

has been both an expression and product of the dialectal tension and

 

struggle between these two models,? he notes. 20 Ringer goes on to discuss how this duality has expressed itself in policy. Relatedly, political

 

scientist Rogers Smith has shown that white racism in the United States??

 

what he calls ascriptive inequality?? as been a tradition in its own right

 

h

 

with theological and scientific rationales. Smith criticizes accounts of

 

American political ideology that stress its liberal democratic features at

 

the expense of its ?inegalitarian ascriptive ones.? This implies taking a

 

?multiple traditions? view of U.S. politics. For two-? hirds of U.S. hist

 

tory, the majority of the population was explicitly excluded from citizenship based on ascriptive criteria such as race and sex. Elimination of

 

those criteria has not followed the straight line toward greater openness

 

that the conventional story describes. Immigration law was much more

 

racially restrictive in 1924 than it was in 1860. 21 Carol Horton?s history

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

6

 


 

Culling the Masses

 


 

of the relationship between racism and different forms of U.S. liberalism

 

similarly concludes that these strands have coexisted but that there is no

 

definitive connection between them. 22

 

Liberalism was less hegemonic in Latin America than in the United

 

States, given the strength of conservativism in many settings, but Latin

 

American countries also had multiple traditions that often included different forms of liberalism and racism. Racial distinctions were disavowed

 

in constitutions but pervasive in everyday life. 23 An overarching lesson is

 

that some forms of liberalism could coexist with racist policies, which

 

came to the fore or receded depending on struggles among interest

 

groups and the extent to which politics was built on a mass base.

 

How well does each of these three perspectives explain ethnic selection in immigration law? The whiggish and critical race perspectives

 

leave unresolved a double historical puzzle. First, if racism is incompatible with liberalism in practice, as the received wisdom maintains, why

 

did liberal democracies implement racially discriminatory immigration

 

and nationality policies before other countries and then lag behind

 

undemocratic countries in doing away with such policies? The view of

 

racism as an anomaly to be worked out in the fullness of history?s progression to a liberal state of universal equality is empirically wrong. As

 

we show in Chapter 3, the leading hemispheric exemplar of liberal

 

democracy pioneered and persisted in the application of ethnic exclusions. Moreover, as Rogers Smith points out, there was no linear progression toward universalism. Second, if liberalism is inherently racist,

 

as critical race theorists maintain, why have the most egregious historical discriminators?? he United States and Canada?? llowed the transt

 

a

 

formation of their populations by letting in large numbers of formerly

 

excluded groups? We show that liberalism is not inherently linked to

 

racism, as demonstrated by the demise of ethnic selectivity in immigration laws since World War II and the profound transformation of the

 

most racially selective polities.

 

The distinct traditions explanation shows how ostensibly contradictory

 

ideologies have coexisted but has little to conclude about the patterns of

 

connections among them. Contra Smith, we show that liberal democratic

 

processes were not simply a distinct tradition, but actually encouraged

 

the formation of racist policies for long swathes of history, even as this

 

connection loosened in the latter twentieth century. The coexisting traditions account also leaves unspecified the conditions under which one particular tradition becomes more salient and influential. By looking inward

 

at the United States alone, it ignores a broader set of factors outside U.S.

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

INT R O D U C TI O N

 


 

7

 


 

borders that affect the political process within. Organizations and relationships extending beyond national borders strongly determine when the

 

tradition of racial universalism becomes dominant.

 

We argue that the long-? erm relationship between liberalism and

 

t

 

racism is best explained as one of ?elective affinity,? a concept used by

 

sociologist Max Weber to describe a relationship that is nondeterministic and probabilistic and that involves choices by those it links. 24

 

Liberalism has had a greater affinity with ethnic selectivity than with

 

universalism, but there is no iron law connecting them. Opportunities

 

on the world political stage and the accessibility of organizational means

 

to less powerful countries upset the affinity between these ideologies.

 

The argument that liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible

 

with ethnic selection of immigrants suffers from a serious methodological problem that has obscured the relationship between racism and liber?

 

a

 

? lism in actual historical practice. Sociologist Christian Joppke?s approach

 

of examining only liberal-? emocratic countries leads to the claim that

 

d

 

the end of racial discrimination in immigration policy began as a domes?

 

t

 

? ic issue in the United States and Australia and then spread elsewhere. 25

 

On this view, the United States appears to be a leader in the removal of

 

ethnic selection in the mid-? 960s, along with Canada, paving the way

 

1

 

for Australia (1973), Britain (1981), and New Zealand (1986).26 The long

 

history of racial exclusion that Joppke documents ended as democracies

 

worked out the kinks in their systems. The focus of such studies, however, is primarily on western liberal democracies in the second half of the

 

twentieth century, which yields a skewed picture of which countries

 

modeled the move away from ethnic selectivity.

 

By taking a longer view and comparing countries with greater variation in their degree of political inclusion and contestation, a far different

 

image emerges. The United States was the leader in developing explicitly

 

racist policies of nationality and immigration. Self-? overning colonies in

 

g

 

Australia and southern Africa joined the United States and Canada in

 

pushing Chinese restrictions in the late nineteenth century. Liberal

 

democracies such as the United States, Canada, Costa Rica, Australia,

 

New Zealand, and the United Kingdom were then laggards in doing

 

away with their explicit ethnic discrimination, long after undemocratic

 

Latin American countries such as Uruguay (1936), Chile (1936), Paraguay

 

(1937), Cuba (1942), and Argentina (1949). 27 Greater public participation in politics has promoted racist policies. Proclamations extolling the

 

virtues of government for the people rang out to justify slamming the

 

gates on racial outsiders.

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

8

 


 

Culling the Masses

 


 

A Three-?Dimensional Model

 

If the purification of liberalism does not explain the rise and relative

 

demise of ethnic selection in so many countries over the course of two

 

centuries, what does? Understanding the causes of change across time

 

and place is the core challenge for comparative-? istorical social science.

 

h

 

It is difficult enough to understand how policies are shaped by the politics of today. Numerous theories of the state, law, and policymaking vie

 

to establish which factors best explain policy outcomes. Historically

 

minded scholars remind us that policies today are shaped by the policies

 

of yesteryear as well.28 To add further complexity, policies here are shaped

 

by policies there. We build on the work of comparativist scholars who

 

are wrestling with how to explain major shifts in law and policy by

 

offering a three-? imensional analytical model attending to the interacd

 

tions between the national and the international levels over long periods

 

of time.

 

Many excellent studies of immigration look for explanations of policy

 

within a country?s boundaries. Hannah Arendt famously observed:

 

?sovereignty is nowhere more absolute than in matters of emigration,

 

naturalization, nationality, and expulsion.?29 When governments decide

 

whom to let in and whom to keep out, they literally define the community that makes a nation-? tate. One might expect such policies to be

 

s

 

self-? ontained, as political actors within each country decide which forc

 

eigners are worthy to become members of the national club.30 Immigration

 

laws are shaped by national ideologies of immigration promulgated by

 

governing elites, such as the notion that the United States is ?a nation of

 

immigrants? or that France has a ?republican tradition? of nationhood

 

that welcomes immigrants willing to shed their ethnic differences. 31

 

National idiosyncrasies clearly matter in the development of national

 

policy, but when viewed in a broader hemispheric context, national cases

 

are not as exceptional as they first appear. Every country in the Americas

 

was at least an aspiring ?nation of immigrants,? and several succeeded.

 

The number of countries in the Americas practicing formal negative

 

ethnic selection rose during the second half of the nineteenth century

 

and reached a peak by the early 1930s before rapidly falling off. Narrowly

 

focused studies of a particular country that ignore events elsewhere

 

cannot explain why selection patterns tended to converge across cases.

 

In his path-? reaking work on ethnic selection of immigrants, Christian

 

b

 

Joppke consistently rejects arguments about the causal importance of

 

international norms or mechanisms for spreading them. ?The focus on

 

domestic mechanisms (including foreign-? olicy interests) is not to deny

 

p

 


 

Brought to you by | University of California - Los Angeles - UCLA Library

 

Authenticated | 10.248.254.158

 

Download Date | 9/15/14 11:25 PM

 


 

INT R O D U C TI O N

 


 

9

 


 

that, especially today, the prohibition of racial discrimination is first and

 

foremost an international human-? ights norm,? he argues. ?However,

 

r

 

initially it was not this way?.?.?.??n]ot an international regime but domestic

 

[

 

society pressures led to the demise of settler states? ethnoracial immigration policies.?32

 

While it is true that all policymaking in sovereign states, including the

 

conduct of foreign policy, becomes instantiated at the national level,

 

arguing by definition that foreign policy considerations are part of

 

?domestic mechanisms? obscures processes outside of the state?s boundaries that affect the development of national policies. Discursively

 

sweeping the international origins of immigration policies under the

 

analytical rug hides the origins of change. Studying a broader set of

 

cases and taking more seriously the interaction of international and

 

domestic sources of policy shows that an international anti-? acist norm

 

r

 

was being established in parts of Latin America and Asia long before the

 

Anglophone countries came around to the growing consensus.

 

Even many comparative studies tend to contrast nation-? tates as if

 

s

 

they were discrete, unrelated units. Variation in policies is attributed to

 

variation within each case, without fully considering how the actions of

 

one country affect others. 33 To address these deficiencies, a growing

 

number of scholars have shown how the policies of other countries of

 

immigration and emigration, in addition to domestic struggles, fundamentally shape national immigration policies. Research into the connections among the laws of countries of immigration have...

 


Solution details:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15

Solution~0001185833.zip (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website www.aceyourhomework.com (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Sep 18, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN YOUR SET DEADLINE.

Order Now