America and Immigration - Essay Example

History and Political Science America and Immigration According to Lee, how did some Chinese immigrants attempt to circumvent the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882? Describe the difference between how the U.S.s enforced the northern and the southern borders When America imposed the Chinese exclusion Act in 1882, the Chine immigrants faced a challenge in their attempt to enter into America. The boarder keepers were harsh and strictly implemented the law to the letter. To circumvent these boundaries, the Chinese people paid their way in. Some boundary keepers took advantage of the strict laws and the fact the Chinese people felt that the law was unjustified to make money from those who intended to enter the country. For instance, Lim, a Chinese native, paid to a $200 to get to San Francisco, and the boundary keepers allowed him in at night. The Chinese people exploited this weakness to circumvent the boarder. The way the American implemented the immigration laws in the north differed with the strategy deployed in the South. In the North, boarder diplomacy was deployed through shared antipathy while in the south the policy measures were deployed. Unlike in the North, the southern boarder was punctuated with surveillance, patrol and deportation. 2. What were the social anxieties that led to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924? According to Ngai, how did this law seek to manage the growth of less desirable Europeans and to consolidate the racial boundaries in U.S. society? The Immigration act of 1924 in America was launched to control the immigration rate that was presumed to increase the population in this country. The country intended to maintain American Homogeneity and avoid population explosion that would result from high inflow of foreigners. They believed that immigration would lead to high rate of unemployment in America and increase in social crime. Resultantly, the government imposed this act to control the inflow of aliens into the country. According to Ngai (4-34), the law sought to manage the growth of the less desirable Europeans by controlling the proportion of Europeans entering the country. Only 2% of the proportion of Europeans in America could move into America per year. This is because they felt that there were already enough Europeans’ as most of them had fled from their country to escape prosecution in Poland and Russia. This regulation also served to control the racial boundaries in the country as the law defined racial boundaries. 3. According to Molina, who made up the California Joint Immigration Committee? Why did the committee seek to "redefine the status quo" of Mexicans and their ability to naturalize into citizenship? According to Reisler, how did this hostility toward Mexican Americans become manifest in U.S. immigration policy toward Mexico? The state-level interest groups, the federation of labour, and the native sons of Golden west, who were influential at the time, formed the California Joint Immigration Committee (181). According to Molina (168) the Mexican faced the challenge of being registered as legal American Citizens. After the American Act of 1924 that defined American citizens as either white or black, it was hard to categorize the Mexicans who were neither black nor white. For this reason, there was need to “redefine the status quo.” Reisler (231-235) states that the immigration laws subjected the Mexicans to literacy test, visa fees and head taxes to make their immigration difficult. Reisler states that the Mexicans served as laborers and their registration as legal nationalists never succeeded. They did not qualify to become citizens as they only served as “children” who obeyed the orders. The discrimination that emerged after the enactment of the immigration acts lead to intimidation of the citizenship rights of the Mexicans. 4. According to Azuma, what is the "Issei pioneer thesis," and how did it reimagine the place of Japanese immigrants in both Japanese and American society? As U.S. and Japan relations became increasingly hostile by the late-1930s, how was the thesis modified? Azuma (1417-1422) refers the “Issei Pioneer hypothesis” as the notion that the Japanese people were inferior and that they were comparable to the low class citizens in America. For the modernist is Japan, this was discriminatory notion that the Japanese could not tolerate. They argued that they were as good as the middle class Americans who and that there was no right to deny them citizenship rights. In the period before the 1930s, the immigration laws prevented the Japanese from entering America or even becoming legal citizens. This hypothesis was a motto of unity that helped the Japanese to feel as citizens of America or although legally they were not. After the year 1930, the hypothesis changed as the international laws now became friendly and the immigration restrictions eased. The Japanese ministry of foreign affairs and the colonial ministry officially sanctioned the international aspect of Issei Pioneer hypothesis. 5. According to Reimers, who were the main supporters and the main opponents of the Immigration Act of 1965? As the federal government enacted this law, why were they so sure that Europeans would continue to dominate the immigration flow? The supported of the 1965 Act included the congressional representatives who felt that the quota systems act that had been used to regulate immigration was too restrictive and unfair for immigrants. The opposes includes the advocates for change who felt that the act would not be effective in regulating the inflow of immigrants in the US. When the federal government imposed this law, they felt that the Europeans would dominate the immigration flow for the reason that they had more people with family ties in the US already. The law admitted the inflow of only those who had a direct relationship with those in the US (Reimers 11-25). Thus, the law was restrictive for the Europeans and hence the government felt that they would be the form the majority of the immigrants in the country. 6. “Topography of race” and “border city” are two concepts that Hise relies on to explain the transformation of Los Angeles from a Mexican town to an American city. Describe each of these concepts in light of Los Angeles urban history from 1898 to 1945. Hise (550) uses the term “topography of race” to explain the factors underpinning the conversion of Los Angeles from a Mexican city to American City. The topography of race refers to the separation that existed between American and Mexicans on the grounds of race. The east and west separated the people of different races and different birthrights. Where Americans lived, it was the place of the ideal citizens of America and the Mexicans lived as refugees. This kind of superiority helped the Americans to dominate the Mexicans and Los Angeles became an American city. Hise (555) uses the term “border city” to refer to Los Angeles, a city where every race converged. It was a city where people from Europe, Spain, Africa and other regions converged together. As a result, the boarder divided people on the line of their physical location and the race. The Mexicans suffered isolation and became part of those who had come to the country, referred to as Aliens. As such, the American became the natives and dominated the City. 7. According to Sanchez, how did Boyle Heights become a rich social laboratory for multiculturalism in urban America? How did this model for multiracialism fall apart by the 1960’s? Sanchez (1-12) demonstrates how the Boyles Heights, an organization that included diverse residents in America, became a rich social laboratory of multiculturalism in the urban America. The Boyles Heights was ethnically dynamic, religious and politically tolerant and community proud” than any other organization (633). The group allowed people from all cultural backgrounds to unite and push for their rights. As such, the group was fair to all the different cultures that existed in this community. This paved way for multiculturalism in urban America by decreasing the American dominance in the country. In 1960, the Boyle height group fallout after the government introduced the McCarren-Walter Act that targeted the multiracial group and the people had to move to the neighborhood districts. Eventually, Boyle Heights district became weak and by 1962, only 4% of the total population was Jews. As the multiracial group dissociated, the spirit of multiculturalism declined and racial bias dominated the country. 8. According to Blackhawk, why did the U.S. government decide to move American Indians from reservations into cities? How did these policies seek to accelerate the assimilation of American Indians? Why did this policy fail, and what lessons does this experience teach us about migration and settlement? The relocation policy that aimed at moving the Indians from reservations to the cities was to provide the Indians with the same privileges that the Americans had in the city. The policy intended to enhance social cultural integration to enhance the assimilation process. The Policy intended to provide the Indian American with opportunities to interact more closely with other American so that they feel as part of the country. However, this scheme failed and the kind of assimilation that the government had anticipated failed. The main reason why this relocation policy failed is that the Indian American already had formed cohesive forces amongst themselves and they found the town life every difficult. The challenges of obtaining labour and breaking their social ties became a source of difficulty for their stay (Blackhawk 16-30). Their dream was to go back to the reserved areas where life was more conducive. The failure of this policy teaches that people are resistant to change in environment, as adapting to a new environment is always a challenge. 9. What were the facts of the Sing Sheng case of 1952? According to Cheng, how did the Sheng case and its aftermath become a “test of American Democracy”? The Shing Sheng case involves the violation of the rights of Shing Sheng, his wife and their son ton relocate the urban South wood. Shortly after Shing Sheng paid a deposit to acquire a house, the neighbors, who were majorly Americans, issued him a warning against living in this locality. They based their argument on the fact that the society around this area is discriminative and they would victimize the family. As such, this advice was to the benefit of this family and not actually a sign of discrimination. However, Shing Sheng opted to forward the case, in which he lost by majority vote. This case became an assertion of how the American society undermined the power of democracy. The case was a challenge of democracy and Shing Sheng sought to fight for his rights to be treated as an equal American. This case attracted the attention of the media locally and internationally triggering the government to reflect on the matter of democracy. Works Cited Azuma, Eichiro. The Politics of Transnational History Making: Japanese Immigrants on the Western Frontier. The Journal American History, 89(4), 1401-1430. 2003. BlackHawk, Ned. I Can Carry On from Here: The Relocation of American Indians to Los Angeles. Wicazo Sa Review, 11(2), 16-30, 1995. Cheng, Cindy. Out of Chinatown and into the Suburbs: Chinese American and the Politics of Cultural Citizenship in Early Coldwar America. Muse Project. n.d. Hise, Greg. Border City: Race and Social Distance in Los Angeles. America Quarterly, 56(3), 545-558, 2004. Lee, Erika. Enforcing the Borders: Chinese’s Exclusion along the Borders with Canada and Mexico, 1881-1924. Journal of American History, 89(1), 54-86. 2002. Molina, Natalia. In a Race All Their Own: The Quest to Make Mexicans Ineligible for US Citizenship. Pacific Historical Review, 79(2), 167-201. 2010. Ngai, Mae. The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A reexamination of the Immigration act of 1924. Journal of American History, 86(1), 67-92. 1999. Reimers, David. An Unintended Reform: The 1965 Immigration Act and Third World Immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, 3(1), 9-28,1983. Reisler, Mark. Always the Labourer, Never the Citizen: Anglo Perceptions of the Mexican Immigrant during the 1920s. Pacific Historical Review, 45(1), 231-254. 1976. Sanchez, George. Whats Good for Boyle is Good for Jews: Creating Multiracialism on the Eastside during 1950s. Muse Project. n.d. Read More