tv Immigration in America CSPAN June 4, 2016 10:40am-12:01pm EDT
is. the people who lived at 8th street and fifth avenue never went over to patton place. >> watch the entire lecture at 4:45 eastern on american history tv. schoolng up, albany law professor delivers an address on immigration and america. mr. finkelman talks about the president and immigration policy, colonial period to modern-day. this event is part of a two-day u.s. capitol historic society symposium. it is about one hour and 50 minutes. we have paul finkelman. those of you come on a routine basis know paul well.
he's been our fearless leader for the past several years and helping to direct the symposium. no introduction is needed. it is really too. i will say that she comes to us from the university of saskatchewan to give you a sense of how far yes come today. he is under a visiting professorship on human rights on ae will be speaking nation of immigrants. the keynote is and what opportunity to look, to see the theme in a broader sense. you will be laying the groundwork or everything we will be discussing. he will be laying the groundwork for everything will be talking about. we have a special lunch program that we don't do typically. we will have a speaker join us during lunch tomorrow so we can keep people in the room. we will have boxed lunches and
you will enjoy it. if you are suspicious about a living history interpreter does, it is a good chance for you to find out what kind of historians deal with the public directly. these are people who speak to classroom groups, tour groups and specific historic site and so on. you will be impressed. without further ado, paul finkelman. [applause] paul: thank you very much. is delightful to be here. i think it is marvelous we are doing this on cinco de mayo. course, as chuck pointed out, when we planned this conference about a year ago, we had no idea that it would be as much in the
news and as important to topic as it has become. i would like to say we could envision the last year of american politics, but then that would all not be true and it would be impossible. so here we are. we are a nation of immigrants. it is a theme that runs throughout our history, throughout a public school books. i did a quick search of cap, werecalled world all the books are located around the world. i find dozens of entries with the title "a nation of immigrants," including the most interesting one, a book written by senator dennis entity in 1958 the published in 1964 with an introduction by his brother robert kennedy and republished again and 2008 with an introduction by his other brother senator edward kennedy. the phrase appears in scholarly
articles and popular journals and popular media all the time. most americans take pride in the notions that we are a nation of immigrants. the story of immigrants success, the story of america as a safe haven or pops immigrants is woven -- is woven in much of our history. within one dollar is noted that the history of immigration is the history of america itself. true if you were focusing on native americans because they would be seeing history of america on the other side of immigration. but it runs throughout our history. up, the schoolg books focused on the famous successful immigrants, andrew carnegie, alexander graham bell, whose name became synonymous with the telephone he invented. john erickson, the great engineer. and occasionally, jack warner
and his brothers who helped make the movie industry. every book would have a mention of the great immigrants scientist who helped us win the war. -- skippingein, nazi immigrantar . immigrant hero summer-like it to be found in high-tech. and growth, the founder of and how is from hungary. inventor of the pentium chip, without that life would not be possible. and the cofounder of google, which is life itself. [laughter] course, wely, of learned of the great entertainers, irving berlin, greta garbo, cary grant, and now of course the more recent immigrant, entertainers natalie portman from israel, arnold
schwarzenegger from austria, and most importantly, 80 denny hamlin from the netherlands. halen from the netherlands. themselves --ants and the single greatest immigrant aphid of our generation, mariano rivera . who? people from boston have spoken. [laughter] when we consider the role of congress and executive branch and immigration, it is important to understand that immigrants and their children, when we speak about immigrants, it is almost important to talk about the generation because they are almost raised in immigrant
communities. there is a phenomenally wonderful math the senses censusd for the 1910 showing county by county the percentage of them are and their children across the united states. a bright red meant there were 30% or more immigrants. all of new york city, most of new jersey are bright red three so is a virtually all of idaho, montana, but the code is -- wisconsin. we important how -- we forget how important immigration was to the settlement of the u.s. will, popular culture -- we talk about politics, we talk about both immigrants and the children of ammon ends who are and politics. popular culture today celebrates the west indian kid who came to new york looking for a college education and instead ended up
as the secretary of the treasury or a meanwhile, while is unlikely to have a broadway play, there is the son of the western immigrants who went to public school and city college in this now being chairman of the joint chief of staff and secretary of state. course, all off in the footsteps of many immigrants and their children who ended up in presidential cabinet and the equivalent. in the last half-century, there have been at least 20 immigrants and their children who have served at that level of american government. we have had two secretaries of state, when secretary of treasury, was secretary of interior, to national security advisers, one was a secretary of state in one investor to the united nations, all of whom were naturalized americans to send. when we think about the role of the immigrant in american history, we have to wonder, what would it be if we cut off this
stream of immigration that has provided us with some of leadership? there are many children of immigrants in congress today and financial in the numbers of grandchildren raised in families were immigration matters. it is simply too big to count. always been the case. in the 1790's, senator pierce butler of ireland. we will learn tomorrow, senator out fred from canada. david andate, peter, carl all of whom are immigrants. in the 20th century, we saw a martinaagner, mel serving in the senate. this is only skimming the easy names off the top. it would be too difficult to
list all the house members, which we would run out of time. 1790, 10% of congress was warren-born. in the mid-1980's -- in the mid- 1880's, a percent. central to the notion of immigrants, america has then a nation of the oppressed. americans have been proud of this and this is reflected in the nickname of the two great entrees to united states, both ellis island and angel island were known as the golden door at the time that they were active and in history sense. there is good reason. whatever else we may say in criticizing some aspect of american culture and american society, the golden door has provided an enormous economic
activity as well as a safe haven for political and religious refugees from around the world. a poll on the base of the statue of liberty encapsulates the ideals and ideology of a nation of immigrants and a golden door. keep each and lands your story pond, she cries, was silent lips, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. send these the home with tempest tossed to me. i live on the land beside the golden door. for newcomers, historically, the site of lady liberty was something they never forgot. calledgrandparents were -- recall the thrill of seeing the statue as their ship came into new york harbor after a less than pleasant voyage from europe. grandfather my father's
side, the statue had greater meaning. tocame to america -- he came america at a time where america band immigrants with various -- or dangerous diseases. my grandfather was not sure what dangerous diseases was, but she knew she had bad eyes -- but he new he had had eyes. trachomat know what was. e knew he'd did not have it. he went from southern poland to manchester to halifax to montreal and took the train from montreal to plattsburgh, new york. one can hardly imagine a more dismal [laughter] way to enter the united states. and he crossed in as a tourist. and he took the train to new
york city and he stated new york city until he discovered that what theyes were not would stop you for ellis island. so he to the boat out to ellis island, one of the fewest triprants to go, reversed sophie could come into the united states. heat came through the back door -- he came through the back door. my other grandfather came to the golden door in 1913 when he was about 13 years old. be 16 to work so he lied on his immigration papers and said he was 17th of the could go to work. sam sent a 17, uncle i isr greeting, world war not here. my grandfather got drafted before he was eligible, but he could say, no, no, no, i am too young. 1918, he became a
citizen under the act of may 1918 was stationed in cam gordon in jordan -- camp gordon in georgia. we are a nation of immigrants. not everybody came and according to the rules. i am the face of the illegal alien. [laughter] my father and mother both foreign and new york city were what some call anchor babies. they were anchoring their illegal fathers who today, of course, would be expelled from the net dates for the way they came into the country. they snuck in through the golden door and lied about it to stay here. forite the easy phrase immigrants who made good and the easy case to be made for immigrant contribution to american society, there has been the counter narrative. often immigrants are seen as a
threat to society or the cause of social and political problems here it immigrants have been condemned for undermining the moral climate of america and have been singled out for criminal behavior when american citizens who did the same thing make headlines. religion, ethnicity, and race have been a constant theme of anti-immigration rhetoric. the nation and even some states and some cities have encouraged emigration for economic reasons. at the same time, opponents of immigration have vigorously argued depressed wages and citizens. nativeborn this is going on today. there are a number of cities seeking out immigrants to revitalize depressed cities,hoods, depressed even as other people complain about the flood of immigrants that keep coming to the u.s.
historically, and certainly today, there have been loud calls for immigration reform and restrictions. immigration is, of course, a central issue in the presidential campaign this year. this, of course, is the donkey in the room. ironically, four of the major presidential candidates this year other children of immigrants. this has never happened before. two of the major president of candidates are married to born outs, and one was of the united states and was never eligible to be president and a first place. and no other time in u.s. history have so made children of immigrants than viable candidate for a presidential nomination. said donald trump become shouldnt, should --
donald trump become president, he'd will be the first child of a president to become -- first child of an immigrant to become president. is a new world for us. as this conference will demonstrate, the rules for citizenship have been constantly changing. like to talk about for the rest of the evening's opposition to immigration in the way it has affected the rules for immigration. they are interconnected. when opponents of immigration are ascendant, the rules change making it more difficult for the huddled masses yearning to be free to affect become free. get here at all, to become a citizen. opposition to immigration has been based on religion, entity, race, and sometimes bigotry.
knownmes the sentiments in u.s. history as nativism, have been quite open. often, immigration has been based on never political considerations, most famously come in 1798, the federalist party try to stop immigration and made it far more difficult for immigrants to become citizens. why? because they understood that most of the new immigrants were voting for the party of thomas jefferson. similarly, in the 1840's and 1850's, the nativist movement culminating in the know nothing party with presidential campaign of 1856. again, did not want catholic immigration in part because the number of the no nothings included 1856 candidate had previously lost elections because they lost the catholic
vote. fillmore could never understand why the catholics did not vote for him after he campaigned in favor of mandatory protestant. michael rating in new york public schools. perhaps, that was his own limitation. the earliest examples i can find of anti-immigration sentiment come from an outburst in william bradford was the governor of the plymouth colony and claimed the population was being corrupted by recent immigrants who were, quote, wicked persons and profane people who had so quickly come over into this land and mixed amongst us. the religious men who began the community had come for religion 's sake and now they had these wicked people. bradford was referring to the recent execution for beastiality of a young man, thomas granger, who at age 17 had been caught in the barnyard doing things which were illegal.
when asked where he learned this immoral behavior, granger said, quote, he was taught by another who had heard of such things from some in england when he was there and they kept cattle together. thus, radford claimed granger's fatal behavior on recent immigrants who corrupted this young man living in plymouth. bradford also noted that another young man had been recently executed for sodomy, confessing done it ingo he had old england. bradford concluded that this illustrated how one with the person may affect many and he urged residents to be careful of what servants they bring into the family. bradford recorded the case in his diary, including various details about rangers behavior , which i will not go into. suffice to say granger confessed
to having sex with various barnyard creatures as well as a wild turkey. [laughter] he was subsequently hanged and all the barnyard creatures were killed and thrown into a big pit. by the way, massachusetts magistrates were truly befuddled of what to do about the turkey and so they went in and shot three wild turkeys and through themrough them in -- threw in the pit to symbolically cleanse the society from this morality -- immorality. after the execution, bradford try to understand why wickedness did break forth in the land where it so much was witnessed against and so narrowly looked unto. he concluded that grangers -- granger's behavior plus adultery and nonmarital sex and "even sodomy and buggery" have broke forth in this land oftener than once.
bradford focused on the fact that most of the offenders were either immigrants or people who had been corrupted by immigrants. he tried to explain this by looking at the labor shortage in plymouth. he noted that many of the settlers, desperate for laborers, that when they could not have such as they would, were glad to take such as they could. so of course, settlers of plymouth were willing to take irreligious people, people of questionable morals, recent immigrants because they were desperate for labor. then he concluded, another and more main reason was that meant -- men finding so many godly persons disposed to these parts, some began to make a trade of it. to transport passengers and the goods. and hired ships for that end.
then to make up freight and to advance their profit, they cared not the people were. by this means, the country became pestered with unworthy people. in other words, plymouth in the 1640's was being overrun by the wrong kind of immigrants brought by greedy capitalists who were willing to fill their ships with anybody who could pay their passage. this, of course, reflects the problems that opponents of immigrants often talk about. not only bad people coming, but local citizens beginning to look the other way and hire anybody they could hire without regard to whether they were the right kind of immigrants. bradford's analysis, by the way, dovetails with that of theodore
roosevelt. the annual message to congress in 1905, roosevelt played the -- declared that the nation could never have too much immigration of the right sort and we should have none of the wrong sort. the debate from the time of bradford to roosevelt to our own time is how do we figure out what the right sort of immigrant is and how do we figure out what the wrong sort of immigrant is. bradford, of course, was not the only colonial official to do this. in the interest of time, i will not go into too many details, but it is worth noting that just a few years after bradford's outburst, the governor of the dutch colony of the new netherland faced the problem of quakers and lutherans and jews creeping into new amsterdam and
corrupting the society. when 23 jews arrived in 1654, he tried to expel these homeless, stateless people. they had no place to return to ordination to protect them, thus, no plans to go anywhere. he immediately wrote to his bosses in amsterdam and asked for permission to expel them because they were "very repugnant to the colonies magistrates." he absurdly claimed that he feared they would soon be up to their old customary usery and deceitful trading with christians. the only problem was they had no money to lend and no money to buy and nothing to sell. that did not worry him. he referred to these 23
immigrants as the deceitful race. such hateful enemies and blasphemers in the name of christ and he hoped they would not be allowed to infect and trouble this new colony. the religious leader of the community similarly wrote authorities in holland and asked that the godless rascals be expelled. the religious leaders noted that many puritans, independence, lutherans, atheists, other servants of bahl under the english who conceal themselves under the name of christians will create further confusion if the immovable jews came to settle here. this fascinating outburst seems to be more aimed at non-jews than jews. the general issue is that the authorities in the new
netherland colony wanted to make sure that they got the right kind of immigrant, and not the wrong sort that had troubled and would trouble americans. official of the dust west indies company sympathized with stivenson. they said they would like to agree with the wishes and request that the new territory are being invaded by people of the jewish race, but they concluded that this would be unfair to these immigrant jews who had escaped from a dutch colony in brazil were a number of jews had died fighting the portuguese invaders and that they had in fact, the -- they had been pretty good columnist's in brazil. and furthermore, the authorities in holland noted that dutch merchants living in amsterdam also wanted to come trade in the new world and ever going to get permission to do so. the dutch authorities refer to a petition of the portuguese merchants, as the jews in amsterdam were called, and in that position the margins has that the american colony was a land that needs people for its increase. that becomes the counter theme
to anti-immigration sentiment. we don't want any of these people, but we really need people and as bradford noted, people took what they could get rather than what they would want. between the british acquisition of the new netherland colony and the eve of the american revolution, there was substantial on terry immigration into the colonies that would make up the united states. most came from great britain, wales, scotland and ireland, the irish were quite considered english so they were among the wrong kind of immigrant, but since they were coming from the realm of the king, it was hard to keep them out. there were also significant numbers of dutch ancestry. the largest non-british immigration came from germany.
immigrants flooded the colonies. in 1740, england made it easier for immigrants to become citizens. they did not make it easy enough in the eyes of most of the american colonists. so, in the declaration of independence, one of the complaints against king george was he has endeavored to in dent the population of the states with the purpose of constructing laws of naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pay ours others to encourage their migrations hither. in other words, the american revolutionaries understood that they needed immigrants and that one of king george's faults was that he was not doing enough to encourage immigration. after the war, america opened its arms to immigration and gave citizenship to many that come to fight in the war including the marquis de lafayette's was granted citizenship even though he had no plans to attend the united states. i suppose it is worth noting and
in passing, as a historian i'm trying not to get too involved in the present debate, one might make the argument if one believed in the intentions of framers that the intentions of the framers of the decoration of -- declaration of independence and the constitution was that we should have open immigration because immigration is what makes america grow and what makes america strong. that would have been the ideology of those people who participated in america's first political tea party in 1773 in boston harbor. after the revolution, the nation
initially was receptive to immigration. the constitution adopted in 1789 allowed for a uniformed rule of naturalization and furthermore, ban congress from interfering with immigration of any kind until 1808. it did allow the states to interfere with immigration. the new constitution gave power to congress the right to control immigration once they got here and to expel people who did not fit in as in the 1798 series of laws known as the alien acts. this then set a pattern that would continue on and off for most of the century. at times, the u.s. would encourage immigration and other times, the u.s. would discourage immigration. the federalists used immigration laws to reduce the number of new citizens who might vote for the opposition, but of course, the federalists lost power after 1801 and many of those laws were repealed or expired or fell into disuse. meanwhile, the states aggressively tried to deal with immigration. new york, for example, require that ships bringing immigrants in the 1820's and 30's register the immigrants with authorities in new york. the mayor of new york versus
milne, the supreme court upheld this noting, it is worth understanding for the court says, this law was obviously passed with a view to prevent citizens from being oppressed by the supporting multitudes of poor persons who come from foreign countries without possessing the means of supporting themselves. in milne the supreme court develop state police powers which allows states to protect themselves from undesirables and the courts argument, the argument of lawyers and of some of the concurring judges in this case compared new york's desire to limit the number of poor immigrants and, by the way, that translates into irish catholic immigrants, to limit irish catholic immigrants precisely
the way south carolina was allowed to prevent the immigration of free blacks from other parts of the united states or from the british caribbean. justice philip barbour concluded, we think it as competent and necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly vagabonds as it is to guard against be physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infectious article supported or should more through which may be laboring under an infectious disease. thus irish immigrants, free blacks, and other undesirable foreigners were really no different than an infectious disease. this is the supreme court of the 1830's. a decade later, there's a new wave of anti-immigration and the first native is our elected to
congress in the 1840's. more famously, they come in to congress in larger numbers and 1850's. in the passenger cases, the supreme court overrules laws of new york and massachusetts which had a tax on new immigrants because the court said that only the federal government could tax immigrants. this was the development of what is in part known as the dormant commerce clause. is important to notice that these major constitutional aspects and there is such a state police powers and dormant commerce clause come from two areas of jurisprudence. one is from immigrant jurisprudence and the other is simultaneously jurisprudence around slavery. as we saw in milne, it is both free blacks and poor irish and criminals and immoral people and
diseases. all wrapped into one. we have to fight against this. 1844, the american party won the mayor's race in philadelphia and new york and one a few seats and caucus. as i said, hurts millard fillmore by endorsing him because all of the catholics all voted for the democratic candidate. in the mid-1850's, the anti-immigrant, anti-catholic american party known as the know nothing party had fleeting success sending 50 members to congress and taking 397 out of 400 seats in the massachusetts legislature. meanwhile, the know nothings elected governors in massachusetts, maine, pennsylvania and mayors in boston, philadelphia, and san francisco. in 1850, fillmore would run for
president and carry the state of maryland. ironically, ireland was first begun as a haven for catholics and so that is why the catholic -- anti-catholic party won maryland. it should be noted, by the way, when i say anti-catholic that meant the know nothings, one of their platforms was that no catholic should ever be eligible to hold public office in the united states. another piece of their platform was that any immigrant who came had to reside for 21 consecutive years in order to become a citizen. if the immigrant left the united states for any reason, the 21 year clock would start again. this was essentially an attempt to prevent immigrants from ever becoming citizens. despite hostilities in the wrong leg wishing spoken and had a strange and odd appearance or went to the wrong church, most americans tolerated and welcomed immigrants. the know nothings, of course,
had a brief amount of success, but they were doomed to failure. in 1855, the leader of the new republican party of illinois wrote to a friend, i'm not a know nothing, that is certain. how could i be? how could anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes in favor of degrading classes of white people talk of our progress of generously appears to be rapid. as a nation, would begin by declaring all people could equal. now reads all the men are created equal except negroes. when the know nothing get control, it will read all men are created equal except negroes and foreigners and catholics. when it comes to this, i should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense about loving liberty. to russia for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
this was abraham lincoln, of course, who five years later would become president. who would understand the sympathy for immigrants was truly important because, in the civil war, about a half a million immigrants would serve in the end states army or navy. at least 200,000 german immigrants come at least a hundred 50,000 irish immigrants, there were numerous irish for grades, german brigades -- irish brigades, german brigades and regiments of swiss, italian regiments. polish and norwegian regiments. there were numerous important generals from overseas. there are number of german generals. but reflecting the diversity of america, there were also a number of jewish generals in the civil war.
they have the same name. just to confuse generations of historians. recognizing the importance of new immigrants, the lincoln administration changed american military law to allow for the appointment of jewish clergymen in the clergy core for the first time in american history. passed a newress statute to encourage immigration and one of the pieces of this new statute was that immigrants who came over not be subject to the draft if they do not want to be. they were encouraging more immigrants because with hundreds of thousands of men in the field, we needed new people to work in the factories and the fields of america. starting in the postwar period, we get the age of mass immigration from scandinavia and the ottoman empire in eastern
europe and these dramatically change both america's ethnic culture and the nature of the society. the new immigrants, not surprisingly, give rise to a new anti-catholic sentiment, merge with anti-semitism, merge with just general anti-immigration. what better things -- interesting things, this is the first large muslim immigration from the ottoman empire, i've yet to find any people worried about muslims coming into the united states at that time. every hatred has its moment and so, that could wait. [laughter] in the 1890's, the american protective association emerges. throughout this time, there are debates as to the race of these new immigrants. because the american naturalization law after the
1870's allowed only white people and people of african ancestry to be naturalized citizens. so the question is, were syrians, turks, armenians, jews, italians, people from south asia, where they white? were they not white? who could come in and who could not? the obvious big issue was if the chinese in the last half of the 19th century and japanese immigration in the first 20 years of the 20th century. all these issues begin to urge -- to emerge in a variety of ways. millions of immigrants come to the united states. 22 million between 1880 and 1914. one of the things to think about when we think about the poor , huddled masses, after about
1902, they are required to have $50 in currency. it did not have to be u.s. money, but the equivalent of $50. so, there is an indoor miss transfer of wealth. i wish i could be a time traveler and go back to a bank in new york, because you can understand there would be this plethora of foreign currency coming into the bank from every part of your and some parts of -- europe in some parts of asia as immigrants forked over $50 and a two dollar process the to -- two dollar processing fee to go through ellis island. then, of course, we've got world war i. after world war i, we had the 1921 and 1924 immigration ask. -- 1921 and 1924 immigration
acts, which essentially close the golden door to most immigrants. the tragedy of the 24 act is that the door will remain closed for hundreds of thousands of europeans, mostly jews, but also many others who would have escaped not to use them and fascism had the door been open. similarly, of course, i will talk about this briefly, the door had already been closed to chinese immigrants so that, again, hundreds of thousands if not millions of chinese who were about to face slaughter by the imperial japanese army could also not come to the united states in the 1930's because the door was closed to them as well. until the 1950's, most often on terri immigration and was of
european origin and after the 1850's, would begin to get large numbers of chinese coming. there are almost no chinese before this time. 1850, the census found 758 people of chinese birth live in the united states. since the revolution, there had been a smattering of chinese come as merchants, occasionally as students, sometimes merchant seamen. there is a large trade, the china trade and ships were always adding a few seamen here or there. occasionally, you get some chinese immigrants coming in. the chinese begin to pour in and 1850's. initially, they are welcomed. initially there are people saying how important the chinese are. how helpful they are. how they need their labor. that quickly changes. we will hear much more about
this tomorrow, so i do not want to go into too much detail, except simply to say by the , 1870's, the west coast of the united states has a -- essentially making war on chinese immigrants doing everything possible to prevent them from coming in from being successful when they arrived and ultimately, this leads to the chinese exclusion act which does not in fact exclude all chinese, but it excludes and awful lot of chinese. there was still be significant intose immigration up world war ii, but not in anything like the numbers before. meanwhile, starting in the mid-1890's, we begin to get japanese immigration. the japanese had not been part of the chinese exclusion act. for a number of reasons, one of which is at the time, it was illegal for japanese to lead the -- leave their country. you do not have to worry about excluding them. the emperor did that for you. however, when the japanese come, they are immediately met with hostility. they are essentially seen as like the chinese, except worse
perhaps. the failure to include japanese in the final exclusion act of 1902, which was only directed at the chinese, injury did people of california. there is an important difference. this is where i will get to bring all this to a close. by 1900, japan was a formidable country. it had a growing economy, a force to be reckoned with, it had played a major role in
suppressing the boxer rebellion in china and by 1906, japan has defeated russia, the largest country in europe in a war. america had to take notice that people the wrong race and wrong religion had suddenly defeated a white european power that was much bigger. teddy roosevelt negotiated the piece for the russia japanese war. that he would win the nobel peace prize. roosevelt came away impressed by the japanese. the japanese never told me anything but the truth in negotiations unlike the , russians. he came away despising the russians and admiring the japanese at the same time he is fearful and wary of the fact that japan is a rising economic power and a rising military power. roosevelt does everything he can to be conciliatory to the japanese from the time he takes office most of the end of his administration. when san francisco tries to segregate japanese schoolchildren, roosevelt steps in and does everything possible to stop san francisco from doing
it, but, of course, he was limited by both federalism. education is a state and local policy. and also by the supreme court , which has said that segregation is ok. if blacks can be segregated in the south, why can't asians be segregated in california? the difference of course, the southern blacks were only protected by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment and the whims of congress and the executive branch. none of whom were sympathetic to the plight of african-americans. on the other hand, the japanese a treaty byed by the japanese government and the u.s. government. therefore roosevelt had more flexibility. ultimately, san francisco would back away from its segregation
of japanese, but not before san francisco had done enormous damage to u.s.-japanese relations. in 1900, the united states agrees to something called a gentleman's agreement, in which japan promises to limit exit visas to the united states. this works for a time but the , japanese immigration rises again. 1908, there is another agreement. japanese immigration goes down a little and then goes back. in 1924, the united states eliminates all japanese immigration in the immigration act of 1924. in the early 1900s, the united states was enormously popular in japan. japanese admire the u.s., they saw the united states as their friend and americans were considered friends of the japanese after the san francisco earthquake. japanese earthquake specialists who knew a lot more about them
than californians came to help san francisco dig out. by 1921 and especially after 1924, the united states was seen as an enemy of japan. in part because of the immigration acts, but also because of the vigorous anti-japanese laws passed in california between 1905 and 1924 restricting landownership to aliens eligible for citizenship. japanese are not because they are not white. that becomes the story of american immigration in 45 minutes. it is hard to cover this much ground in any great detail. one of the things that is clear is that the decline of immigration after 1924 fundamentally changed the united
states. people growing up in the 1920's, 30's and into the 40's grew up in a nation of immigrants. people went to school with immigrants, people knew immigrants, there were the immigrant heroes. s, the loumaggio greenbergse hank that americans cheered for. 1950's, there were few immigrants in schools. i would to high school in a town that had a large italian-american community. a number of irish-americans, a very small smattering of jewish americans. there was one immigrant kid in my class. everybody else had grandparents who were immigrants or even parents who were immigrants. the generation of the postwar
baby boom up through the millennials is a generation that grew up without knowing immigrants, without understanding them and that i think has led to greater hostility to immigrants than any time since the 1920's. because people who do not know -- who do notere know other people fear other people and are bothered by other people. that is one of the lessons, i think, of closing the golden door. by closing the golden door, we in fact increased the potential for hostility to the foreigner because the foreigner was truly foreign. for my parents' generation, the foreigner was not foreign at
all. the foreigner was their classmates or parents or the parents of their classmates. and so, that is the world that we have been bequeathed to us. and in the rest of the symposium, we will examine in much greater detail many aspects of this immigration history. thank you very much. [applause] we have lots of time for questions. just wait until the microphone reaches you and perhaps stand up. are there questions? yes, over there. >> thank you. do we know much about variable rates of migration, some groups come and go home or is it that who comes to america and stays? that is question one.
, foruestion two is immigrants and do you characterize it? individual choice or communities that are relocating? professor finkelman: ok, the first question is easy. the vast immigration from 1880-1924, we have fairly good statistics of re-migration. as you might expect, re-migration varies by country. for example, significant numbers of italian immigrants and polish immigrants return home. they make money and go back home. the debate over the 1924 act, one of the congressmen pushing for the act said something about these immigrants coming, make money and then back to italy. and congressmen la guardia got up and said, yeah, but they leave the roads and sewers and
bridges and subways they build. that was part of that debate. on the other hand, as you might expect, jewish immigrants who had no home to go back to have a repatriation rate of 8%, i think. they come and talk about because -- they come and they do not go home because there is no home to go back to. the other phenomenon which is much more modern, post-world war ii, a significant number of immigrants retire to their home country so that, at one point, which still may be true -- i was not anticipating the question, so i do not know if it is still going on -- but at one point, there were social security offices in warsaw and dublin and tel aviv and athens and rome and various other cities in italy because so many americans spend their lives here and go back home to receive the social security. a reversal of the balance of payments.
in terms of how do immigrants i think some obviously come as individuals. they get on a boat and come over. others come as communities. more likely, i think they come as families. there is a fairly standard pattern. men come first. immigrants are disproportionately male. for those communities where you get the rest of the family coming over, the men come over and earn money and send money back. their sisters and daughters and wives and grandmothers come over and so you get, get families coming over. there are communities. there are organizations and people who came from particular cities that exist. i have an uncle who is buried in the cemetery area and everybody
in that cemetery's descendent of somebody who came from the same place in eastern europe. i'm guessing that may be true and lots of other communities as well. there are catholic churches, polish catholic churches and probably catholic churches that are northern italian and southern italian. i think that is the answer. there is a hand over here. >> intriguing points about how after 1924, the generations that go to school in the 40's and 50's, there are not too many immigrants that they go to school with. you are saying, connecting how
that leads to if you don't know immigrants, you will be more hostile. then i looking at the last half-century, since the 1965 act that reopens immigration and am i correct that in the last 20-25 years, there has been probably the highest immigration, at least in raw numbers at any time in the last 100 plus years? professor finkelman: yes. >> how does that connect to the recent anti-immigrant stuff? professor finkelman: i have seen studies in the study suggest that people who are most hostile towards immigration today, and this of course gets to the elephants and donkeys in the room, this is modern politics, the people most hostile to immigration are people who grew up in the 50's-60's and 70's. that is where the core is. the pew foundation has done a lot of research on this. just stuff i have read from other places. by the way this is similar to , issues of race. children who went to integrated schools are less likely to be hostile to racial integration
than people who did not go to integrated schools. i think to know people is to be more respectful of them and to be less uncomfortable with them. there was a hand up. yes. wait until the mic gets there. >> you mentioned that today, both your grandfathers would be deported. what percentage of do you think they might be deported? 10%, 20%? professor finkelman: of what? >> not that many illegal aliens are deported. professor finkelman: both of my grandparents would have been deportable because they came in -- my father's father came in under fraudulent circumstances. he had no intentions of leaving, he overstayed -- if there
had been a tourist visa, he would have overstated. my other grandfather simply lied to immigration authorities. that will get you kicked out today. i wrote about this on huffington post on a piece that i co-authored, i got a ton of e-mails on people who said "me too." through his grandfather he is in the same boat i men. -- same boat i am in. my relatives too. one person said their grandfather came over alone, he was too young to immigrate, he came over alone and he found a family with 12 children and he just got in the middle at the right height and walked off the boat and got a new name. he took the family last name. then he was here. there were lots of people like
this who came over and, of course, immigration inspectors were mostly concerned about people with loath some diseases or anarchists after the assassination of mckinley or people with certain kinds of criminal records. by the way, it is interesting that the criminal records law has an exclusion for people who are convicted of political crimes. in fact, and 1840's, there is a case where they are trying to deport an irish immigrant who is wanted for murder in england in the deportation fails because he convinces the court that it is a political crime, not a murder because when an irishman kills
an englishman, it is always a political crime so he's allowed to stay. >> [indiscernible] professor finkelman: you didn't misunderstand. i probably misstated. i said they would have been deportable. obviously not everyone who is deportable gets deported. the other thing about this is that if you are deportable, then you are always vulnerable. if you are here with some kind of problem in your status, you are always subject to different rules. even naturalized citizens and our people here who can better talk about this than i can, even naturalized citizens don't have the same protections as american-born citizens when it comes to issues of deportations.
that is true in the past at least if it is not currently true. i will defer that to people who know immigration lot better than i. -- you know immigration law better than i. >> [indiscernible] professor finkelman: courts decimate things and then they undecimate them. other questions? a hand over here. >> thank you very much. they're interesting topic. i hope i have not missed something earlier, when i am curious is about, how many of the three hundred million people here in the united states are immigrants at this point? do we have an idea of the percentage? professor finkelman: do someone know? i don't have that number in front of me. >> about 40 million. be from decades
ago, maybe? professor finkelman: they would be from many decades ago. mr. trump's wife is now a naturalized citizen, but she is an immigrant. we have lots of immigrants in the country and most of them have come in the last 30 years. >> 10-14% which would be about 40 million and then i think about 1910 and 1920. >> we would have been higher than that. the 19 -- from matthew 24-1960 five, the number of immigrants is truly a trickle compared to what it has been. other questions? last minute. go ahead. do i hear once, twice?
>> i don't of this is a question or an observation, i worked for the u.s. capital historical society and i've been looking at around the room at the different phases and thinking about myself, i'm adopted and i only found out, like, five years ago, my grandparents are from russia , outside of the pale. and my grandfather came to philadelphia first. then the rest of the family, including the siblings came over and one of the siblings was my mother. and the house is still standing in south philadelphia with the house where they lived in the budget shop on the bottom. the only reason he was outside it wase in smolensk,
because he had a trade. he was a butcher. he was not put in the ghetto. i was thinking about this while you were talking and it is not a question rather an observation about immigration and how it affects people down the line. sometimes, i grew up in people -- and people asked me where i was from all my life. i'm not immigrant per se, i'm not first-generation. but i have -- professor finkelman: actually, if your mother came over, you are first-generation. >> i am? [laughter] professor finkelman: if your mother was an immigrant, you are the child of an immigrant. you are first-generation american. yeah. >> yeah. how do you like that? [laughter] makes youfinkelman:
no different than, say, marco rubio. [laughter] >> or ted cruz. professor finkelman: no, ted actually is an immigrant from canada, but that is a different question. [laughter] >> i need to clear up the naturalization question. professor finkelman: please do. i knew you would. she practices immigration law so i defer to her. >> a naturalized citizen has the same rights as a person born. the only issue is that the government can ring a federal -- can bring a federal suit to take this citizenship away if it is obtained illegally. but the government carries the burden of proof, so you are right. it very rarely happens. most of the time, we see the nazis being deported and having their citizenship taken away. anyway, that is the story. professor finkelman: no, that is fine.
that of course is a difference. we could have two individuals, one of whom is an american who went somewhere and became a war criminal and the other is a war criminal and they both come back to the united states and the foreign-born war criminal becomes a citizen -- war criminal becomes a citizen and can lose his citizenship. the american war criminal cannot. >> yes. they can't. but you know, to really go off the reservation, it has been kind of interesting to watch after 9/11 how some u.s. citizens have given up u.s. citizenship. they gave it up as part of a deal. professor finkelman: ok. the brave new world of citizenship. one question in the back. >> talking about statistics, have you seen the new smithsonian museum in american
history, they have this innovation wing talking about immigration and places of invention and it is decade by decade that want to say that in the basement of american history, it is worth seeing. innovation wing, smithsonian. professor finkelman: again, the smithsonian is always worth seeing. [laughter] professor finkelman: there is some fabulous stuff there. what is important is that almost anywhere you go in this country, there are museums that deal with immigration. -- ae -- as i started nation of immigrants. how we come to terms with that is fascinating. some people don't recognize the immigrant status because it was seven or eight or 10 generations ago.
it is still always interesting, i mean, i suppose for me the , weirdest encounters are the people who are the children of immigrants and want to shut the door behind them as they come in. i always find that to be the weirdest -- or the people who are the grandchildren of immigrants and don't want -- that may be another from a -- another phenomenon, which i have not talked about here. and that is, of course, many people who become americans or who are the children of americans want to, as much as possible, melt into the system and disappear. they want -- when i thought about speaking here, i thought i might just do a litany of name changes in american history and the way, part of the golden door is that you reconfigure yourself as something else.
even beyond that, the names you take and there are all kinds of first name naming patterns that are fascinating amongst certain ethnic groups, trying to be americanized. and then, of course, there are the people who change names because they want jobs. in order to get the job, he had -- you had to pretend your not who you are. i believe, and i could be wrong about this, there may be other exceptions, but for example, when barbra streisand became a famous singer, everyone told her she needed to change her name because that last name would not make it in america. you know. one more -- there's one behind you. let me take two. let me take this one and the guy
behind you. no, go ahead. and the guy behind you. >> a comment on generations of the immigration historian marcus hansen had a hansen's law, that the third-generation wants to remember what the second-generation wants to forget. my question is about the concept of naturalization. my sense is naturalization meant something different in the 18th century than what it means today. it was more economic for economic rights, as opposed to citizenship and political rights. or am i wrong? it has tofinkelman: do with everything. there are certain economic rights that come with naturalization, but -- it might surprise some americans to know that at various times, noncitizens have been allowed to vote. in both national and local elections. at other times, only citizens could vote. so, if you wanted to be in the political process became
-- you became naturalized. certain economic rights came with naturalization. the other piece of it is, and i think this is important, naturalization is also a symbolic and personal accomplishment. i mean, my grandparents had naturalization papers framed on the wall and i suspect that was very common for hundreds of thousands and millions of immigrants who became citizens and were fiercely proud of becoming citizens because it gave them a place of belonging and a place to be where they were. >> that's my point. is there always the concept of citizenship -- and if you go deep enough, go back in american history, is there always a concept of citizenship in the colonies? they are not really citizens per se. professor finkelman: yeah, they are. that is why in the 1740, there
is an imperial law. law allows protestants and others to become citizens. you read this and you say what are the others? the others turn out to be quakers and jews. now we know who can't become citizens, which are catholics. in the 1740's, you can migrate to the american colonies and become a citizen of the british empire and that meant a great deal. that meant you were part of something, you are protected. if you were a merchant seaman, you were protected by the british navy. if you went abroad you could get , a passport. there are huge advantages to being a citizen as well as, he -- you could participate in the political and cultural process. in colonies often could
not hold public office. they could naturalize and that would give them economic rights, but they could not hold office, not political rights. professor finkelman: lots of people do not have complete political rights. and that is true. but they could also serve on juries. jury service, for the average american in the 18th and 19th century, jury service is a lot more important than if you will be elected alderman. with that is militia service. militia service entry service -- militia service and jury service and voting means you are part of the community. >> [indiscernible] professor finkelman: of course. >> just saying. actually,finkelman: not entirely, because inheritance rights -- there are places where you cannot inherit land if you are not a citizen. a window might not be able to inherit. if somebody writes a will and
rights you in, you have to be able to inherit the land. there are some citizenship issues for women as well. >> [indiscernible] professor finkelman: pardon? >> there are a lot of citizenship issues for women. you could not naturalize. [laughter] isfessor finkelman: there one question over here. >> i don't have a question, it is more about an amusing anecdote. several years back i met a fellow, and i asked what nationality he was and he explained that his ancestor came through ellis island with a name tag on that said "the u.s." all of them were called theus. that is how he got his new name. in the new country. professor finkelman: >> yes. thank you all very much.
[applause] >> just a reminder, everyone who can, join us tomorrow. tomorrow morning. it's going to be in the russell center office building and the instructions are on the yellow piece of -- yellow flyer outside. i look forward to seeing you tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> american history tv on c-span3 -- tonight at 10:00 america" --reel 110,000 cubans flee cuba. florida ino qs, nearly 2000 boats. why did they come? why are there so many? >> during the spring through
fall of 1980, cuban refugees arrived in florida. here interviews from these new arrivals to america and find out why they left. sunday morning at 10:00 on "road --the white house rewind" bill clinton accepts his party from nomination in new york city. proudly clinton: i accept your nomination for president of the united states. >> and incumbent president bush accepts his party from nomination in houston. bush: i am proud to received and honored to accept your nomination for president of the united states. >> historian barry lewis on the evolution of greenwich village. when it opened on six avenue it visually gave us what we
already understood. west of six avenue was the west side. no one crossed that line. might cross the line to work as a servant in washington square, but believe me, the people from washington square never went on the other side of six avenue. >> and later, on "the presidency" -- >> unanimously the president of the constitutional convention, unanimously the president of the united states, unanimously elected the president of the united states, unanimously the commander-in-chief of all of the armies of the united states -- what a record. >> george washington scholar speaking about how washington retired was often called upon to craft policy. for the complete schedule, go to
www.c-span.org >> up next on the presidency. presidential aides to discuss the role of lyndon johnson and richard nixon during the vietnam war. alexander butterfield and tom johnson explore the foreign policies of the presidents they worked for. emotional burdens they faced during the conflict. this program was part of the three-day conference at the lyndon b. johnson presidential library. it was called the vietnam war summit. you can find schedule information at c-span.org. you can find schedule information at c-span.org. this program is about an hour. >> please welcome the director of the lbj presidential library.