1. Immigration Immigration Waves First and Second Wave Naturalization Law and Race The Case of Puerto Rico Chinese Exclusion Acts Public opinion Labor leaders’ opinion Legislation Loopholes in Legislation Construction of Racial Difference Visually Legally Immigration Restriction Literacy tests and Quotas Act of 1924

2. Immigration Waves in US History antebellum, 1840-1860—largely northern European, especially England, Ireland and Germany—approx. 4.5 million late 1890-1920—largely Southern and Eastern European, including Polish and Russian Jews, Italian, Greek—approx. 14.5 million also Asian immigrants in the late 19th-early 20th century, in much fewer numbers (for example, Chinese immigrants built US railroads) Immigration Act of 1924 establishes national quotas for immigration - immigration drops sharply after 1965 immigration act reform - immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia outnumber those from Europe

3. Immigration Waves > Naturalization Law and Race in US History 1790 - Congress limits naturalization to white persons 1870 - Congress adds African Americans (naturalization limited to “free white persons” and “persons of African descent”) 1952 - racial prerequisite for naturalization eliminated

4. Immigration Waves > The Case of Puerto Rico 1898 - Puerto Rico acquired as a result of Spanish-American War 1917 - US Citizenship extended to Puerto Ricans 1950-1951 - Puerto Rico becomes a “Commonwealth,” has a right to establish a government with proper constitution, officially no longer a colony 1953 - The largest Puerto Rican migration to the mainland US (69,124) Plebiscites and referendums on the political status of Puerto Rico: 1967 (commonwealth 60%, state 39%, independence 1%), 1993, 1998 - the commonwealth is reaffirmed each time with increasingly narrower margins non-binding 1998 referendum: remain a US commonwealth: 0.06% “free association” between commonwealth and independence: 0.29% become a state: 46.49% declare independence: 2.54% none of the above: 50.30%

5. Immigration Waves > The Godfather, Part II (1974)

6. Immigration Waves > Alfred Stieglitz, “The Steerage,” 1907

7. Chinese Exclusion > Cartoon on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

8. Chinese Exclusion > “The Chinese: Many Handed But Soulless,” The Wasp, 1885

9. Chinese Exclusion > “The Bradys and the Chinese Dwarf,” ca. 1907

10. Chinese Exclusion > Labor leaders’ opinion Denis Kearney, California’s Workingmen’s Party (typical) Chinese laborers are “cheap working slaves” who lower white workers’ standard of living and should be banished from the U.S. Joseph McDonnell, an Irish-born socialist Intolerance against the Chinese repeats earlier “intolerant, silly and shameful cry” against the Irish. Workers should learn from this history and unite B.E.G. Jewett, a socialist Corporate employers--“oppressors, money-mongers”--are to blame and must go

11. Chinese Exclusion > Acts of 1882, 1884, and 1888 and related legislation Only Chinese non-laborers and those who were born in the U.S. can enter Those who resided in the U.S. prior to 1880 can remain if they don’t leave the country If they leave they can come back if they have at least one thousand dollars worth of property or debts owned to them The status of wife and child followed that of a husband No Chinese could be naturalized as U.S. citizen

12. Chinese Exclusion > Loopholes in Legislation Many Chinese were able to get into the U.S. by appealing to U.S. Courts even after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 The prohibition of judicial review of immigration decisions did not apply to the Chinese because unlike other immigrants until 1903 they did not come under purview of the Bureau of Immigration and immigration law Judges often ruled in favor of Chinese plaintiffs because they adhered to Anglo- American common law traditions of habeas corpus and evidentiary rules of witness testimony (for example, did not require two white witnesses) Newcomers relied on community groups and white lawyers to make their case for citizenship based on witness testimony This continued until 1905 when the Bureau of Immigration took over Chinese immigration and was granted final jurisdiction in the question of citizenship

13. Construction of Racial Difference > Fragment What is this man’s ethnic background?

14. Construction of Racial Difference > Entire Cartoon, ca. Civil War

15. Construction of Racial Difference > Arnold Genthe, “An Unsuspecting Victim,” 1908

16. Construction of Racial Difference > Using photography to emphasize difference

17. Construction of Racial Difference > Emphasizing difference

19. Construction of Racial Difference > Jacob Riis, “Bandit’s Roost, 59 1/2 Mulberry Street,” c. 1888

20. Construction of Racial Difference > Jacob Riis, “Bandit’s Roost,” How the Other Half Lives (1890)

21. Construction of Racial Difference > Jacob Riis, “Mullen’s Alley, Cherry Hill,” 1888

22. Construction of Racial Difference > “Home of an Italian Ragpicker,” 1888

23. Construction of Racial Difference > “One of Four Pedlars Who Slept in the Cellar of 11 Ludlow Street Rear,” c. 1892

24. Construction of Racial Difference > Supreme Court Decisions In re Balsara, 1909Asian Indians are probably not WhiteCongressional intent U.S. v. Dolla, 1910Asian Indians are WhiteOcular inspection of skin U.S. v. Balsara 1910Asian Indians are WhiteScientific evidence In re Sadar Bhagwab Singh, 1917Asian Indians are not WhiteCommon knowledge Congressional intent In re Mohan Singh, 1919Asian Indians are WhiteScientific evidence In re Thind, 1920Asian Indians are WhiteLegal precedent U.S. v. Thind, 1923Asian Indians are not WhiteCommon knowledge Congressional intent In re Najour, 1909Syrians are WhiteScientific evidence In re Mudarri, 1910Syrians are WhiteScientific evidence Legal precedent In re Ellis, 1910Syrians are WhiteCommon knowledge Congressional intent Ex parte Shahid, 1913Syrians are not WhiteCommon knowledge Ex parte Dow, 1914Syrians are not WhiteCommon knowledge In re Dow, 1914Syrians are not WhiteCommon knowledge Congressional intent Dow v. U.S., 1915Syrians are WhiteScientific evidence Congressional intent Legal precedent

25. Construction of Racial Difference > Supreme Court Decisions In re Mallari, 1916Filipinos are not WhiteNo explanation In re Rallos, 1917Filipinos are not WhiteLegal precedent U.S. v. Javier, 1927Filipinos are not WhiteLegal precedent De La Ysla v. U.S., 1935Filipinos are not WhiteLegal precedent De Cano v. State, 1941Filipinos are not WhiteLegal precedent In re Halladjian, 1909Armenians are WhtieScientific evidence Legal precedent U.S. v. Cartozian, 1925Armenians are WhiteScientific evidence Common knowledge Legal precedent In re Feroz Din, 1928Afghanis are not WhiteCommon knowledge In re Ahmed Hassan, 1942Arabians are not WhiteCommon knowledge Ex parte Mohriez, 1944Arabians are not White Legal precedent

26. Construction of Racial Difference > U.S. v Bhagat Singh Thind, 1923

27. Immigration Restriction > Ku Klux Klan Marching in DC

28. Immigration Restriction > Cartoon on the Literacy Test

29. Immigration Restriction > Cartoon on the Quota Act of 1921

30. Immigration Restriction > Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act) Based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on 2 percent of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census Was directed against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe who arrived in large numbers after 1890 Barred all immigrants ineligible for citizenship on racial grounds, including all south and east Asians (including Indians, Japanese, and Chinese) 1965 Hart-Celler Act abandones the national origins quota system

31. Immigration Restriction > Annual Immigration Quotas, 1924 Germany - 51,227 Great Britain - 34,007 Ireland - 28,567 Italy - 3,845 Hungary - 473 Greece - 100 Egypt - 100

32. Immigration Restriction > Map of Europe, Literary Digest, 1924