54 pages • 1 hour read
Mae M. NgaiA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
While the Immigration Act of 1965 ended the system of national origins quotas, it maintained a ceiling on the number of immigrants admitted each year and extended numerical restrictions to the Western Hemisphere. This ensured the continuation of illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico. Although the reform of the quota system democratized access to citizenship, it by no means guaranteed citizenship to immigrants (229). The distinction between citizen and alien was in fact hardened.
Ngai argues that the thinking behind immigration reform combined a “pluralist view of American domestic group relations and a nationalist privileging of the U.S. nation-state’s geopolitical and economic position in the world” (230). Pluralism, earlier conceived to be a means for immigrants to retain their ethnic identity while becoming Americans, was re-conceptualized in the 1950s as a means for ethnic groups to participate in politics and further their interests. It assumed that groups would assimilate.
In 1948, Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act to address the millions of displaced in Europe. Asia was ignored. The act allowed for the admission of 200,000 European refugees, who would be charged to future quotas from their respective countries. Introducing economic preferences for the first time, the law required that 30% of those admitted be agricultural workers. As the bill discriminated against Catholics and Jews and had a quota, Truman signed it with reluctance. In 1950, Congress enlarged the quota to 414,744. Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act, or McCarran-Walter Act, in 1952 over Truman’s veto. The law retained an annual quota of 155,000 per year and made no provision for admitting refugees.
Although the act did not eliminate non-quota immigration in the Western Hemisphere, it imposed quotas on former British colonies in the Caribbean. It created a global race quota to limit Asian immigration, but allowed Asians to become citizens. Additionally, the bill created occupational preferences for immigrants, elevating the chances for those with special skills and privileged familial ties as well. It extended the grounds for the expulsion of immigrants and allowed for denationalization for those in subversive organizations.
While liberals failed to achieve reform in the 1950s, they established the “ideological foundations and programmatic elements” for the reforms that would come in 1965. They stressed the importance of the United States’ reputation abroad during the Cold War, noting that racist policies damaged its interests. Advocating for formal equality and the equal treatment of all ethnic groups in the US, liberals did not focus on the result of ending racial subordination. The framework accepted the ideas of territoriality and numerical restrictions; there would simply be equal quotas for all. Underlying immigration policy was a form of economic nationalism, with occupational categories prioritized and American jobs protected.
In the negotiations for the 1965 act, the specter of increasing migration from Latin America and the Caribbean was invoked to propose quotas on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time. Failing to grasp the inevitable rise in illegal immigration if legal avenues were eliminated, liberals accepted quotas in the Western Hemisphere consistent with their embrace of formal equality and border control. Ultimately, the Immigration Act of 1965 increased the annual ceiling to 290,000 but also allowed for non-quota-based immigration of family members. The quota for the Western Hemisphere was 120,000 and was not initially divided among countries, given the large percentage of immigrants from Mexico and Canada. The law put stronger controls in place to protect domestic employment and wages as well. President Johnson signed it into law on October 3, 1965. Ngai comments that it was greeted as a progressive victory for its elimination of national origins quotas, but was nonetheless restrictive given its numerical restrictions and imposition of quotas on the Western Hemisphere.
In 1976, amendments to the law closed a loophole that had allowed undocumented Mexican immigrants with US-born children to legalize their status. A quota of 20,000 was established for Mexico, which recast Mexican migration as illegal (261) and sought solutions in enforcement. Occupational preferences drained poorer countries of their talented citizens. Asians used the preference system to bring family members to the US. As a result, the Asian American population increased from 1.2 million in 1965 to 10.9 million in 2000. In short, the 1965 Immigration Act offered inclusion to eastern and southern Europeans, Asians, and Africans, yet in emphasizing territoriality, border control, and abstract equality, it acted exclusively toward Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and Latin America.
The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 ensured the continuation of illegal immigration with its adherence to numerical restrictions. After 1965, illegal immigration dramatically increased. By 2000, the INS was removing 1.8 million undocumented individuals per year, but estimated that the undocumented population was increasing by approximately 275,000 per year. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed. Providing amnesty for 2.7 million immigrants, it also imposed penalties on employers who knowingly employed illegal aliens. The law did not curb illegal immigration. In the 1990s, the Mexican-American border was militarized. While this step did not deter illegal immigration, it made the journey more dangerous for immigrants.
In the 2000s, the net annual immigration to the US “averaged about 700,000” (266). While not a large number, the shift in its composition to third world immigrants has been consequential. It has triggered nationalist sentiments in the form of restrictive propositions and an English-only movement. Latino/as comprised 12% of the US population in 2000, with Mexican and Central American immigrants embodying the negative stereotype of illegal in the American imagination. Asians have been “repositioned” as “model minorities” (267) to their detriment. In reality, there are still undocumented, working-class, and refugees among Asian immigrants. The casting of Asians as model minorities emphasizes their foreignness and leads to reverse quotas and glass ceilings.
The development of law for alien rights has been uneven. On the one hand, court rulings in the 1970s and 1980s ensured that undocumented children have access to education and that aliens could receive state welfare benefits. However, the Court has not restricted the power of Congress to regulate immigration and benefits to aliens. In 1996, laws terminated welfare benefits to legal aliens, made the removal of legal aliens mandatory for a “broad range of offenses” (268), and drastically reduced judicial and administrative discretion in deportation cases. In effect, the law made it easier to transform a legal into an illegal alien and made it virtually impossible for an illegal alien to gain legal status.
Illegal immigration “results from the confluence of two conditions: macroeconomic structures that push and pull migration from developing countries to low-wage sectors of the United States, and positive domestic law” (269). While it might continue for as long as there is such an unequal distribution of wealth among countries, there are alternatives, such as investment in poor countries and amnesty.
The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 has been heralded as a progressive victory, ending the racist allocation of quotas. While Ngai acknowledges that accomplishment, she nevertheless emphasizes The Continuities in US Immigration Policy. The 1924 Immigration Act created numerical restrictions for the first time in US history. Instead of reversing that decision, the 1965 act accepted numerical restrictions for the admission of immigrants. Indeed, the 1965 law imposed quotas on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, something that the 1924 law did not do.
In retaining numerical restrictions and applying such restrictions to Mexico, the law created the problem of illegal aliens. The numerical restrictions themselves were allocated equally in a formula that prioritized formal equality. However, equality in process does not necessarily yield equal results. Ngai criticizes reformers for hiding behind formal equality and ignoring racial dynamics and subordination.
Economic factors became grounds for the determination of eligibility for quota slots in the 1965 act. In an effort to protect the wages of US workers, priority was given to those with skills in demand. This facet of the law gave incentive to those in poor countries with education and professional jobs to emigrate, therefore depriving their countries of their talents. Importantly, this priority ignored the need for low-wage agricultural workers and virtually guaranteed illegal immigration. Those immigrants, mainly Mexican and Central American, experienced the legacy of Racial Hierarchies in US Immigration Law. The unrealistic restrictions placed upon their entry categorized them in the American imagination as criminals. Ngai concludes that illegal immigration is driven by the demand for low-wage workers in wealthy countries, such as the US, and positive laws that restrict the entry of such workers. It is a self-made and therefore artificial problem.
Illegal immigration across the southern border became a central political issue in the late 20th and 21st centuries. Laws have made legal entry more difficult and jeopardized the status of those in the country legally. Just as Asian and Mexican immigrants were associated with illegality, criminality, and foreignness in earlier times, Central American and Mexican immigrants are scapegoated in the 21st century. Emphasis has been placed on securing the border and preventing their entry, yet there is economic demand for their services. Ngai criticizes the depiction of Asian immigrants as model ones as well: That image is also not representative of the complex reality, and continues to define Asian immigrants as distinct and foreign. Ngai thus suggests that moving forward would entail changing the United States’ approach to illegal immigration, with more policies centered upon amnesty and by addressing the wealth imbalances between countries that create incentives for illegal migration in the first place.