Word Count: 1486
The Differences in Lucy Salyer’s and Cybelle Fox’s Criteria For Citizenship
Throughout American history, the United States government created policies that decided who can and cannot come to America to be recognized as a full fledged citizen: an individual who has been recognized as a loyal member of a nation and receives benefits granted by the government. Lucy Salyer, author of Baptism By Fire, and Cybelle Fox, author of Three Worlds of Relief, emphasize that the government based their immigration policy on issues such as race and occupation. Despite their agreement that the United States government played a major role in deciding who can and cannot become full fledged citizens, Salyer and Fox disagree on the main criteria in which they decided which immigrants could have this recognition. Salyer argues that immigrants’ race and service decided whether they should be included or excluded from full citizenship, while Fox asserts that individuals’ occupation determined this matter.
As Salyer and Fox both mentioned, the government played a vital role on deciding who can become citizens through legislation, organized groups, and judicial rulings. The government can be defined in this case as legislatures, agencies, and the justice system. Throughout American history, legislatures made laws in which included and excluded newcomers to America. Aristide Zolberg, author of A Nation by Design, emphasizes this by stating, “nationality involves the delineation of a boundary, denoting simultaneously inclusion and exclusion” (Zolberg,17). A country can tend to be welcoming or unwelcoming to foreigners.
In the United States, legislatures have been inclusive and exclusive to foreigners depending on the national interest. Lu...
... middle of paper ...
.... 56% of workers were covered, while 67% of them were Europeans and 57% were white. According to Fox, Europeans benefitted the most since majority of them held manufacturing jobs and were more likely to turn sixty-five when it was grandfathered in. Yet, approximately 38% of Mexicans and blacks were covered. This was due to the majority of them being agricultural workers or domestic workers. Therefore, Europeans held occupations that allowed them to meet the criteria for social security benefits, while Mexicans and blacks did not (Fox, 251-253).
Salyer and Fox agree that the government played a role in shaping immigration during the 1920s and 1930s. Yet, they disagree with the criteria that the government used to decide who received full-fledged citizenship. This debate still continues today and this nation continues to base a criteria on who to include and exclude.
Race figured prominently in the development of immigration policies in the U.S. It had been most important characteristic used to determine whether or not one would be considered an American for many years. Predetermined by earlier race relations between Americans of the European and African descend, the black and white paradigm was challenged with an arrival of Asian Indian immigrants. Their dark skin hue and Aryan ancestry put this group of immigrants in an ambiguous position in regards to the right of U.S. citizenship. It is through a case-by-case process of determining one’s eligibility for naturalization that the difference between white and non-white categories had been clarified, contributing to the justification of social inequality and the formation of unassimilable groups of Asian immigrants.
Daniel, Roger is a highly respected author and professor who has majored in the study of immigration in history and more specifically the progressive ear. He’s written remarkable works over the history of immigration in America, in his book Not like Us he opens a lenses about the hostile and violent conditions immigrants faced in the 1890’s through the 1924’s. Emphasizing that during the progressive area many immigrants felt as they were living in a regressing period of their life. While diversity of ethnicity and race gradually grew during this time it also sparked as a trigger for whites creating the flare up of nativism. Daniel’s underlines the different types of racial and ethnical discrimination that was given to individual immigrant
As the hostility toward immigrants had begun to relax, the residency period was reduced to two years by 1824. More reforms were made over several decades, and by 1870 new legislation gave persons of African descent, Asians and other non-white groups access to citizenship. As the country matured and became more multiracial, additional legislation would be passed to prevent “protected groups” from discrimination and exclusion. Present day, the United States is still a country of immigrants and continues to expand its laws to be inclusive of all its citizens and residents. All participants who contributed to the diversity of this county helped to create the vibrant economy and democracy that we know
The United States’ government instilled a closed door policy with the creation of many immigration laws in an effort to make America a melting pot of similar ethnicities. However, the prejudice of American society that was enforced by immigration policy forced immigrants to form their own communities for the purpose of survival and protection, turning America into a mosaic of different cultures. The Burlingame Treaty of 1868 and Naturalization Act of 1870 both created a false image of acceptance for immigrants while simultaneously restricting immigration. The United States’ government only began clearly restricting immigration with the Page Act of 1875 and Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
In 1924 immigration was reduced further to 160,000 a year, and in 1929, immigration was cut to 157,000 and quotas were again reset based on national origins in the 1920 U.S. Census. The rationale was that these laws would ensure the existing ethnic composition of the country and help assimilate the 15 million southern and eastern Europeans who had entered the previous forty years (endillegalimmigration).” Clearly then, Hardin’s alleged concern on the quantity of immigrants entering the United States doesn’t compute with the current regulations imposed already on how many immigrants are allowed to come legally yearly anyway! However, “the door was left open for Mexicans (who even then were desired by employers for their cheap labor) and northern Europeans. As history would show, this legal immigration led to illegal immigration and foreshadowed today’s debate on these topics (endillegalimmigration).” So, America left the door open for illegal immigration per their discretion to capitalize on cheap labor, not as a concern for the “lifeboat” but Hardin’s essay fails to address this important fact as do
Immigration has been a topic that people have struggled to accept for centuries. The questions often asked are, what are we going to do about it? And should we allow them in? The problem here is that technically most Americans were immigrants at one point unless they are Native American. With every new wave of immigrants, there is a reemergence of fears that control our views. Both David Cole and Barry R. Chiswick agree to allow immigration and convey that the views most people hold aren't properly based on real evidence.
“I do not believe that many American citizens . . . really wanted to create such immense human suffering . . . in the name of battling illegal immigration” (Carr 70). For hundreds of years, there has been illegal immigration starting from slavery, voluntary taking others from different countries to work in different parts of the world, to one of the most popular- Mexican immigration to the United States. Mexican immigration has been said to be one of the most common immigration acts in the world. Although the high demand to keep immigrants away from crossing the border, Mexicans that have immigrated to the U.S have made an impact on the American culture because of their self sacrifices on the aspiration to cross over. Then conditions
In the United States, the cliché of a nation of immigrants is often invoked. Indeed, very few Americans can trace their ancestry to what is now the United States, and the origins of its immigrants have changed many times in American history. Despite the identity of an immigrant nation, changes in the origins of immigrants have often been met with resistance. What began with white, western European settlers fleeing religious persecution morphed into a multicultural nation as immigrants from countries across the globe came to the U.S. in increasing numbers. Like the colonial immigrants before them, these new immigrants sailed to the Americas to gain freedom, flee poverty and famine, and make a better life for themselves. Forgetting their origins as persecuted and excluded people, the older and more established immigrants became possessive about their country and tried to exclude and persecute the immigrant groups from non-western European backgrounds arriving in the U.S. This hostile, defensive, and xenophobic reaction to influxes of “new” immigrants known as Nativism was not far out of the mainstream. Nativism became a part of the American cultural and political landscape and helped to shape, through exclusion, the face of the United States for years to come.
The United States is in the midst of a major debate over immigrants and their place in our economic and political life. As during other times in our history, immigrants, are being blamed for causing or contributing to the social, economic and political ills of our society. Politicians from both major parties, at both the national and state levels, are promoting a range of punitive legislative proposals that single out immigrants for adverse treatment by the government. Many violate basic civil liberties principles.
Immigration has always, and will always, be an essential part of America’s demographic and cultural diversity. Our country was founded on the immigration of Europeans to the New World. Without them our nation would not be as advanced as it is today. Over the past three centuries, America’s immigration policies have evolved, both positively and negatively. Although we are moving forward, several episodes in our country’s immigration policy have targeted and attacked certain ethnic or cultural groups.
"The main controversy lies in the passing of a plethera of laws throughout the existence of the US regulating immigration and in the handling of illegal immigration. Modern immigration polocies have recieved less and less publicity as tolerance becomes more widespread, although each person is entitled to their own opinion about the issue" (Conover 342).
America is a nation consisting of many immigrants: it has its gates opened to the world. These immigrants transition smoothly and slowly from settlement, to assimilation then citizenship. These immigrants are first admitted lawfully as permanent residents before they naturalize to become full citizens. In her book “Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America”, the historian Mae Ngai draws our attention to the history of immigration and citizenship in America. Her book examines an understudied period of immigration regulation between 1924 and 1965.
In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justify restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate.
The arrival of immigrants to the United States is often associated with fear. Immigrants are vulnerable to attacks if they are cast as threats to the way of American life. A deeper look into immigration policies reveals that immigrant restrictions are seated in racialized notions. Immigrants before the founding of the nation came for the opportunities of a better life. The immigrants who would continue to come thereafter came for much the same reasons. But government policies demonstrate repeated attempts to block the immigration of undesirable immigrant communities.
This week I enjoyed reading Lauren Berlant’s reading, “Citizenship” and one section that stood out to me what on the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790. This section of her article made me think about/understand through different ways the role that immigrants have had in the U.S. For instance, Berlant points out that the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 essentially excluded some groups of immigrants from become citizens because the requirements were freedom and whiteness. Therefore, African slaves did not have the chance of becoming citizens because they could not sell their own labor and they were not white. In addition, other immigrants who could sell their labor, but if they were not white, they could not have full rights of citizenship (e.g.