#3:.

film?

a:
n .2

. .

.2

.4!

«War
.. f .
, n

mg»?
3.: ‘

um
5

 

{mm} M .
Iuflwwy A”?

a e... s
....u...nuu...t:r
w I: f in?
1th.. .lfl,..u.$mm_.i

013...... .
t...‘

. I. tm‘i.

.III!
4 :52'14
“a.

. l0.
It’ll-QFI‘ u. ,
...,!|Iuv£..flbul§: II.
l‘l It‘lllll’v If 10-)!
I v...- \..l|.\.lv.v. .

§.iildflnfi

 

fig: , . flmzma.., .. . _ . ‘ . .

‘ ‘ !‘.N

THEStB

< \Q" '2 ”It )

 

'GAN STA BRARIES
l

LIBRARY IllIll/illllllll rill

olmmrl Willi
Michigan State 3066
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Alien Notions: Varieties of Nativism and
Perceptions of Threat

presented by

Brian Fry

has been accepted towards fulfillment i
of the requirements for ‘

Ph .D . degree in Sociology

 

 

EafiEwéawf’

Major profess r

Date October 19L 1998

 

M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution O~ 12771

 

 

._.-_...—— .—...._..

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

”‘2‘“! 6 2001

 

"12501

 

 

p

0221 oil

 

 

 

Aiiéiiagi

 

OCT 1 9 2005

 

 

 

 

091614;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma CUMpGS-au

ALIEN NOTIONS: VARIETIES OF NATIVISM AND PERCEPTIONS OF THREAT
By

Brian Nelson Fry

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1998

ABSTRACT
ALIEN NOTIONS: VARIETIES OF NATIVISM AND PERCEPTIONS OF THREAT
By

Brian Nelson Fry

US. immigration and immigrant policies are subject to domestic politics, constitutional
interpretation and international codes. The interests of each institution are not constant,
but constructed through interactions at national and supra-national levels. This
dissertation examines national-level interactions through the lens of immigration
reform—intentional actions designed to produce or prevent change in immigration and
immigrant realities. Attempts to reduce the number of legal entries and/or redefine state—
noncitizen relations in the direction of less rights and benefits for noncitizens are
principally examined because the size, form, and incorporation of migration flows are
largely affected by public and governmental responses.

“Nativism” is routinely used to describe and analyze these reactions, but is
generally undefined and predicated on untested assumptions. These shortcomings are
attenuated by using historical and interview data to consider three interrelated questions:
(1) What is American nativism?, (2) Under what conditions does heightened nativist
activity occur, and (3) What does immigration mean to individuals involved in
immigration reform?

Using historical-comparative methods, the constitutive elements of nativist
reactions are identified and developed into a set of criteria for measuring and comparing

multifarious reactions to immigrants and their descendants. Interviews with individuals

engaged in immigration programs and politics, and a content analysis of immigration
reform agency documents and archives, discloses the primary motives and worldviews of
those actively involved in organized efforts to reform current immigration and immigrant
policies. Nativism is reconceptualized in light of these data as a “native” defense of
proprietary claims over and against the encroachment of “aliens.” Perceptions of natives,
aliens, entitlement, and infringement are historically variable and, therefore, subject to

revision. This definition, and the findings of this study, are integrated in the conclusion.

Copyright by
BRIAN NELSON FRY
1998

To Jody, for understanding.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Some people must be thanked for all of their generosity, ideas, patience, and support. I
wish to thank Ruben Rumbaut, my advisor, for sharing his time with me. Few advisors
call their advisees during Christmas break to assist them with their first grant proposal or
leave their office three hours late because one of their students had a “quick question”
about immigration. His sociological rigor and keen insights greatly improved the design
and presentation of this research. I am sincerely grateful on all accounts. Steve Gold
directed me to important sources and pressed me to write more clearly. He helped me to
ask the right questions and develop a research design to answer them. Maxine Baca Zinn
led me to specify the structural basis for contemporary nativism and steered me through a
dizzying maze of race research. Marilyn Aronoff introduced me to the art and science of
interviewing and taught me, by way of example, to appreciate (and utilize) the richness of
interview data. All four committee members renewed my energy levels with their
encouraging words and thoughtful remarks.

Special thanks go to Tom Kuecker. He read and reread every chapter I sent him,
and listened patiently to my ideas and discoveries. Most importantly, he has been a true
friend since we both arrived at MSU. No one can make a breakfast “meeting” or java run
like Tom can. Thanks also to Sok Be and Jody Fry for helping me transcribe some of the
interviews. The Department of Sociology and Graduate School also deserve mention, as
they provided me with some seed money to attend three conferences.

My parents—Harvey and Barb Fry and Dave and Gayle Dem—supported me

from beginning to end, but only my wife Jody knows about all of the stuff in the middle.

vi

On some days, her patience and love were the only things brightening up our apartment.

Few spouses are as understanding as she, and I thank her for it.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
Research Issues ....................................................................................................... 2
Self-evident Nativism .......................................................................................... 3
Contextual Nativism ............................................................................................ 4
Attitudinal Nativism ............................................................................................ 6
Choosing Sides by Choosing Terms ....................................................................... 8
Expansionists and Restrictionists ......................................................................... 8
Nativism ............................................................................................................... 10
The Importance of Immigration Reform ................................................................. 11
National Dimensions ............................................................................................ 12
International Dimensions ..................................................................................... 13
Dissertation Plan and Approach .............................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 2
THE DISCOURSE AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF NATIVISM ................... 19
Examining Nativism ............................................................................................... 20
Four Models ......................................................................................................... 21
l. Nationalism .................................................................................................. 22
2. Resource Competition .................................................................................. 29
3. Prejudice ...................................................................................................... 34
4. Group Position ............................................................................................. 36
Reviewing the Four Models .................................................................................... 40
The Discourse and Social Organization of American Nativism ............................. 42
Debating Immigration Reform: Legitimacy and Perceptions of Nativism .......... 43
What is Legitimacy and What Are Its Bases? ..................................................... 46
Fluctuations in Nativism: A Weberian Analysis ................................................ 49
The National Narrative ........................................................................................ 52
Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses to Legitimate Principles .......................... 5 6
The Social Organization of Nativism .................................................................. 61
Identifiability ..................................................................................................... 61
Native as a Sense of Group Position ................................................................. 63
Defining Nativism ................................................................................................... 67

viii

CHAPTER 3

AMERICAN NATIVISM IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................... 72
A Review of American Nativism ............................................................................ 72
The Ebb and Flow of Religious Nativism: 1600-1859 ........................................ 73
“Racial” and “Radical” Nativism: 1860-1929 ..................................................... 81
Wartime Nativism and Emerging Concerns: 1930-1998 ..................................... 89
Group Position and the Context of Nativism .......................................................... 99
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 107
CHAPTER 4
NATIVISM: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW AND PREVIEW ......................... 111
Research Design ...................................................................................................... 111
Historical Comparative Research and Analysis ................................................... 112
In-Depth Interviews ............................................................................................. 113
Research Sample Characteristics ...................................................................... 115
Interview Settings and Recruitment Procedures ............................................... 118
Interview Format ............................................................................................... 121
Collection and Analysis of Written and Visual Records ..................................... 122
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 124
Initial Expectations .............................................................................................. 124
A Perspective on Interviewinglmmigration Advocates and Allies ..................... 127
Nativism and Vocabularies of Motive .............................................................. 128
The Interview .................................................................................................... 130
Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive as an Approach ........................ 137
Immigration and the Politics of Reform: An Analytical Preview ........................... 138
Legitimacy ........................................................................................................... 141
Working the Context ............................................................................................ 145
Expansionist and Restrictionist Worldviews: A Preview .................................... 150
Summary of Research Methods .............................................................................. 153
CHAPTER 5
RESTRICTIONIST WORLDVIEWS ......................................................................... 154
Entry Points .................................................................................................................. 154
Population and Environment ..................................................................................... 155
Demographic Forecasts ............................................................................................. 159
Human Nature .............................................................................................................. 164
American Exceptionalism ......................................................................................... 164
Public Image ............................................................................................................. 170
Nationalism: Drawing Lines ........................................................................................ 174
National Sovereignty ................................................................................................ 174
Foreign Aid ............................................................................................................... 176
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 181

ix

CHAPTER 6

EXPANSIONIST WORLDVIEWS ............................................................................. 183
Entry Points .................................................................................................................. 183
Immigrant Contributions ........................................................................................... 184
The American Experiment ........................................................................................ 188
Human Nurture ............................................................................................................ 192
Human Ingenuity ...................................................................................................... 193
Refugees .................................................................................................................... 199
Globalism: Erasing Lines ............................................................................................. 202
Engaging the Globe ................................................................................................... 203
Realpolitik ................................................................................................................. 205
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 211
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 212
Review ......................................................................................................................... 212
Perceptions and Context ........................................................................................... 213
Categories and Context ............................................................................................. 218
Legitimacy and Context ............................................................................................ 219
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................. 222
APPENDIX 1 Consent Form ...................................................................................... 228
APPENDIX 2 Interview Schedule .............................................................................. 230
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 233

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Timeline of American Nativism .................................................................... 101
Table 2 Research Sample Attributes ........................................................................... 116
Table 3 Expansionist and Restrictionist Motives ........................................................ 217

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Contemporary Legitimacy Spectrum of Arguments for Restricting
Immigration .................................................................................................. 45

Figure 2 Adaptation of Merton’s Typology ................................................................ 57

Figure 3 Field of Primary Organizations Shaping National Immigration Reform
Efforts .......................................................................................................... 119

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Does international migration undermine the well-being and progress of host countries, as
some people argue, or is the problem the reactions of those who express such views?
Should waves of workers, family members, and refugees be regarded with alarm or are
population flows a benign outcome of economic interdependence, emerging markets,
foreign policy, risk management, and transnational communities (e.g., see Gold 1997;
Massey 1998; Sassen 1996; Weiner 1997)? Conflicting answers to these questions
occasion little surprise because they originate on different planes of consideration and
travel through divergent worldviews. But these arguments are predicated on the
assumption that international migration is a public matter, an issue demanding
government intervention (LeMay 1994).

For some, the problem is borders and their guardians. They reason international
migration is only international because humans have erected national boundaries. If
people were only more tolerant and less xenophobic, and governments not so
preoccupied with jurisdiction, borders could be swept into the dustbin of history. For
others, the problem is international migration. They argue that immigration endangers
the culture, economy, environment, polity, and/or national security of receiving countries.
Is the problem a matter of perception and unwarranted apprehension or is international
migration a destabilizing element in national and international relations? Is immigration
a crisis or management problem (e.g., see Sassen 1996; Weiner 1995)?

Dichotomizing the complexity of international migration returns simplistic

answers, but this contrast captures the polarized character of the debate. The purpose of

this dissertation is not to assess the myriad of empirical and moral arguments presented
for and against the continuation of current US. immigration and immigrant policies, but
to examine immigration reform—intentional actions designed to produce or prevent
change in immigration realities. In many instances, these efforts are regarded as
“nativist,” illegitimate native reactions to immigrants. The decision to lodge the process
of immigration reform, and the perception of these actions, under one analytical roof is
grounded in this reality.

Arguments about immigration reform are often arguments about legitimacy
(Bosniak 1997). Is it “right” to restrict noncitizens from federal and state means-tested
programs? Should the needs of the host country or the needs of migrants be the primary
criterion for admission? Is migration selectivity discriminatory? Can national borders be
justified? (e.g., Carens 1997; Gibney 1997; Massey 1998; US. Commission on
Immigration Reform 1997; Weiner 1997)? Wrangling over the effectiveness of public
policy and the national interest repeatedly raises questions of legitimacy: Are these
policies constitutional? Do they contradict international protocol? Are they “un-
American,” “nativist,” humane, or “just”? Observing this phenomena in the past and
present, and interviewing individuals involved in immigration reform, highlights the core
of this controversy and deepens our understanding of the people who contribute, directly

and indirectly, to American immigration and immigrant policies.

Research Issues

Contemporary analyses of American nativism are primarily guided by three
“orientations.” These orientations are not analytical models (which are discussed in the

next chapter) but are “analytical threads” woven into more comprehensive and more

complex interpretations of nativist phenomena. Each perspective explains the emergence
of immigration reform, or more specifically, nativism, in a different manner.

The first “thread,” or orientation, basically equates nativism with immigration
restriction and/or the reduction of immigrant “rights.” In many cases, this assumption
clears the way for analyses brimming with motive imputation and moral indictments
instead of empirical research. The second orientation focuses on the interaction of
economic, social, and political contexts for purposes of comprehending nativist
initiatives. In the final analysis, however, this perspective generally ignores the variety of
individual perceptions and decisions made within these contexts. The third orientation is
the exact opposite of the second approach insofar as it considers the discernment of
individual motivations, or more generally, personal perceptions and actions, as the key to
understanding social action. At some point, though, nativism becomes larger than the
sum of its parts and develops into a “climate” or collective initiative. The summation of
individual attitudes and behaviors cannot fully explain the content, timing, or force of
social movements. Elaborating briefly on the content of each orientation is necessary
because the model of American nativism developed in the next chapter is designed to

hurdle these pitfalls.

Self-evident Nativism

Immigration scholars frequently use the term “nativism” to describe attempts to reduce
the number of legal entries and/or redefine state-noncitizen relations in the direction of
less rights and benefits for noncitizens. For some researchers, the concept is synonymous
with immigration restriction, regardless of the explanation(s) offered in defense of this

objective. Other scholars apply the term to restrictionist attitudes and efforts if the

motives and concerns underlying the preferences and behavior are considered illegitimate

in some general, normative sense (e.g., restricting immigration for racist reasons). For a

number of scholars, though, the concept not only refers to restrictionist attitudes and/or

behaviors, but also irnputes motives to proponents of immigration restriction (e.g., see

Sénchez 1997: 1025).

Analyses informed by these perspectives tend to cloud, rather than clarify, our
understanding of American nativism, immigrant adaptation, and immigration reform—
and the relationship between all three processes—inasmuch as these perspectives tend to
rely on one or more of the following assumptions or arguments:

1. Although “nativism” is laden with normative significance and associated with a
variety of beliefs and behaviors, the concept is used as if its meaning and importance
were self-evident (Bosniak 1997: 279-284). For example, what makes a sentiment
“antiforeign” or constitutes a “fear of ‘foreigness’” (e.g., see Sénchez 1997: 1018-
1020)?

2. It is assumed that reducing immigration levels is nativistic. For example, is the entry
of 915,900 legal immigrants in 1996 legitimate, but an annual ceiling of 650,000 legal
admission per year illegitimate? On what basis are such designations made?

3. Motives are routinely imputed to “nativists,” but rarely, if ever, backed by data. One
prevalent assumption is that environmental and economic arguments are surrogates
for other, less acceptable rationales, such as racial concerns (e.g. see Johnson 1997:
174).

Establishing the origin of these premises is a complicated undertaking, but they are based

upon different worldviews and experiences. Perspectives like these are examined in

Chapters 5-7.

Contextual Nativism
The second perspective attributes the occurrence of nativism primarily to demographic

and economic contexts, such as increases in immigration and worsening economic

conditions (e.g., see Bennett 1995; Calavita 1996; Muller 1997 ; Perea 1997). In this

respect, this perspective is the exact opposite of the third insofar as it examines the

contexts in which nativism occurs, but almost completely ignores the perceptions and

beliefs of individuals within these contexts—particularly those which diverge from the

context(s) being emphasized. Of course, understanding a certain phenomenon requires a

thorough understanding of the contexts in which it occurs, but there are at least two

potential problems with this line of analysis:

1.

Precipitating factors are often treated as causal factors. For example, Calavita
contends that California’s passage of Proposition 187 was not “simply an
instrumental response to economic conditions” or a “purely symbolic measure,” but
can “best be understood as a particular type of symbolic statement, the content of
which and the motivation for which are grounded in prevailing economic conditions”
(1996: 285, italics added). While economic conditions certainly precipitated
Proposition 187, to what extent did these conditions actually shape and kindle nativist
notions or provide people with nativist motives? Even a cursory review of the
interviews conducted by journalists reveals a number of concerns which seemingly
have little to do with economic conditions (e.g., see Kadetsky 1994). A precipitating
factor often gives generalized beliefs immediate substance, but in and of itself, is not
the cause of anything. “It must occur in the context of. . .other determinants” (Smelser
1965: 17). Context is certainly critical to understanding the variety and intensity of
nativism at a given locale and time, but overemphasizing its importance can obscure
the different motivations people bring to a nativist initiative. Terms like “economic
nativism” and “racial nativism” highlight the contextual character of nativism, but at
times, this terminology implies cause and effect, and tacitly imputes motives to
nativists (e.g., see Bennett 1995). The ironic consequence is that nativistic contexts
are often better understood than the very nativists who construct meaning and act
within them.

By focusing on fairly dramatic circumstances, this orientation seemingly precludes
analyses of nativism in less noticeable contexts. Higharn recognized this tendency
three years after the publication of his now classic, Strangers in the Land (1955):
“What bothers me most. . .is that the concept of nativism has proved serviceable only
for understanding the extreme and fanatical manifestations of ethnic

discord. . .Nativism owes its significance to this intensity of feeling: and historians,
fascinated by the men of passion and moods of alarm, have neglected the less
spectacular but more steadily sustained contentions imbedded in the fabric of our
social organization” (1958: 151). The social and legal foundations of American
nativism (primarily citizenship and immigration and immigrant policies) are often
neglected when researchers examine nativism as overt behavior. For example,

Bonilla-Silva (1997) notes that subtle expressions of racism, and the rational
foundations upon which racial practices commonly rest, are frequently forgotten by
scholars who examine racism as an overt, irrational behavior. To what extent have
social scientists resorted to motive imputation and identity politics because they have
not been examining the institutional foundations upon which the ideas of race and
nation rest?

The challenge is to analyze social phenomena without losing sight of the people who

manufacture meaning and act upon ideas in different contexts—a difficult undertaking

when the broader social context is only considered.

Attitudinal Nativism

The third orientation pinpoints the attitudes, perceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes of

the American populace as a way of understanding American nativism. There is little

doubt that perceptions of threat (e.g., economic anxiety or “the browning of America”)

and intergroup attitudes are linked to a broad range of behaviors (e.g., the recurring push

to exclude legal and illegal immigrants from social welfare programs). However, there

are at least two problems with this kind of analysis:

1.

The attitudes and perceptions related to nativist attitudes and behaviors are usually
assumed. By specifying the relevant variables beforehand, the explanations offered
by such projects are limited to the researchers’ assumptions about relevant attitudes
and perceptions. The informal hypotheses are rarely, if ever, based on interviews
with “nativists,” but are presuppositions about the values, beliefs, and perceptions of
“nativists.”

Collective actions (e.g., the passage of Proposition 187) are, at times, almost entirely
analyzed in terms of individual attitudes and beliefs (e.g., see Johnson, Farrell, and
Guinn 1997). Even when American attitudes toward US. immigration levels and
immigrant populations are correlated with micro-level and aggregate factors (e.g.,
economic conditions), the implicit assumption is that restrictionist sentiments can be
understood by examining individual perceptions (e. g. see Espenshade and Hempstead
1996). Not withstanding the long-standing attitude-behavior consistency debate, the
sum total of individual attitudes and perceptions cannot always account for the
prevalence of ideas, perceptions, or behaviors. Consideration of the broader social
context is imperative.

For example, the legislation proposed by Representative Lamar Smith and Senator Alan
Simpson to simultaneously crackdown on illegals and cut legal immigration by
approximately 40 percent seemed assured in early 1996. But six months later, legal
immigration was left basically untouched, largely because a coalition of expansionist
organizations convinced journalists and public officials that illegal immigration should be
distinguished from legal immigration. The idea to “split the bill” originated in a strategy
meeting1 and was successfully promoted by a powerful coalition—even though public
opinion polls indicated that US. citizens desired reductions in legal and illegal
immigration (Heilemann 1996; Johnson, Farrell, and Guinn 1997). A plethora of
advocacy organizations, lobbyists, and politicians shape—and at times, generate and
implement—ideas that are not necessarily embraced by the body politic.

Each orientation contributes to our understanding of American nativism.
However, these orientations belong to more comprehensive models of American
nativism. These analytical frameworks organize the social traffic converging at the
intersection of social structure, values, beliefs, and behaviors. The relationship between
ideas and the material world is unclear and no model of human behavior enjoys
unquestioned acceptance, but the review of analytical models in chapter 2 is designed to
clarify the connection between ideas and structural arrangements. Before reviewing the

contents of this and other chapters, however, it is important to examine some of the

 

' This analysis is informed by Heilemann’s (1996) study of the political coalitions and elected officials
active in the 1996 immigration debates and based upon interviews I conducted with immigration activists in
the spring and summer of 1997. A prominent expansionist recalled the strategy meeting where he and
other expansionists decided to try splitting the bill: “[We] said ‘No...let’s distinguish legal from illegal
immigration as a way to thwart the momentum of the restrictionists as a way of clarifying the debate and
then we’re in a stronger position both to defend legal immigration and to debate the right ways to deal with
illegal immigration.”

ambiguous and controversial concepts used in immigration research and the immigration

debate.

Choosing Sides by Choosing Terms
In partisan issues “a choice of words is a choice of sides” (Luker 1985: 2). The
vocabularies of government officials, immigration activists, journalists, and researchers
routinely disclose their Opinions of immigration and the United States’ management of it.
The entry of illegal aliens should presumably be impeded, but the status of undocumented
aliens, who also entered the United States surreptitiously, should apparently be
regularized (Weiner 1995). Should immigrants be accommodated, assimilated,
incorporated, or integrated? And the people who use these terms—are they immigration
enthusiasts or immigration critics, xenophiles or xenophobes, pro-immigrant or anti-
irnmigrant, “open borders” supporters or nativists (e.g., Brimelow 1996; Perea 1997)?
When used indiscriminately, this terminology obscures an already complex set of

phenomena.

Expansionists and Restrictionists

In this dissertation, individuals and organizations proposing lower immigration levels are
referred to as restrictionists whereas those seeking to maintain or increase immigration
levels are referred to as expansionists.2 The terms are used literally and figuratively. In
comparison to replacement-level immigration or net emigration, current immigration

levels are expansive. The continuation of today’s policies expands the US. population

 

2 These signifiers were suggested to me an interviewee, and are discussed in Chapters 5-7.

and rate of population growth. Comparatively, the restriction of present policies reduces
the US. population and growth rate (e.g., see Beck 1994; Edmonston and Passel 1994).3

Expansionists contend that current immigration levels, relative to the US.
population, are not high by US. historical standards. Restrictionists argue that current
immigration levels, in absolute numbers, are historically high. Both sides are correct. It
is not the disagreement, however, that unsettles restrictionists and expansionists, but the
conclusions drawn from the data, which disturb them. Proponents of restriction are
persuaded that “absolute numbers matter—absolutely” (Brimelow 1996: 37) and
expansionists are convinced that immigrant arrivals, as a percentage of the US.
population, is “the most relevant measure of the impact of immigrants on our culture,
infrastructure, and labor markets...” (Cato Handbook F or Congress 1997: 315). While
neither side is likely to agree with the other’s assessment, the immigration levels for
which they advocate are, if nothing else, higher and lower, respectively, than that of their
counterpart.

There is also the issue of immigrant reform. Legal distinctions between citizens
and non-citizens is probably the most obvious example. In general, most expansionists
disapprove of recent attempts to firrther restrict the number of programs and benefits
available to noncitizens. Most restrictionists seemingly approve of these measures,
although some argue that such initiatives are inappropriate and ignore the real issues of
immigration and population control.

In a figurative sense, expansionists and restrictionists also view the impact of

immigrants on the economy, population and culture of the United States in terms of

 

3 For a systematic analysis of assumptions (e.g., fertility, mortality, immigration, emigration, etc.)
employed in population projections, see Edmonston and Passel (1994).

expansion and restriction. For example, restrictionists generally see the economy in zero-
sum terms. Immigrants entering the labor force compete with native-born workers for a
fixed number of jobs, thereby restricting the opportunities of American citizens and
residents. Expansionists, on the other hand, visualize an expanding economy. American
opportunities are expanded by immigrants: jobs that would have otherwise been lost are
retained and new jobs are created. These representations are not flawless, but less
ideological than conventional depictions: anti-immigrant, pro-immigrant, nativist, and
pro-open borders (e.g., see Brimelow 1996: 11-15; Muller 1997). Generalizations
pertaining to the economy, culture, and population are explored in greater detail in

Chapters 5-7.

Nativism
The word “nativism” was selected for reasons of consistency and relative neutrality.
First, an entire body of work exists under the subject heading of nativism. The literature
is replete with untested assumptions and unanswered questions which ultimately served
as the impetus for this research project. Secondly, I have found the term “nativism,” as a
matter of inquiry, to be rather inoffensive. Restrictionists interviewed for this study
generally did not object to its negative connotation or my use of the term. This may be
surprising, but when restrictionists learned of my interest in nativism, they often
recommended books on the subject and, at times, expressed their interest in, and concern
with, the issue. In fact, restrictionists often argue that their policies will help neutralize
nativist backlash (Bosniak 1997: 280).

A number of restrictionists view American nativism as a brief blip on America’s

radar screen, an overzealous movement to bridle the behavior of immigrants and

10

Catholics in the mid-18003 (see Chapter 4 for details). Because nativism is something
that happened, some restrictionists seemingly think it is impossible to be guilty of
something which no longer happens. Expansionists, of course, may question this, but the
important point is this: restrictionists do not see themselves as nativists and therefore do
not conclude that a study of American nativism necessarily includes them.

The term “immigration reform” is not substituted for “nativism” because the
process of immigration reform connotes a wider array of actions and attitudes. As
explained in Chapter 2, “nativism” is a better descriptor of illegitimate behavior. The
first half of this dissertation primarily focuses on nativism and the second half on
immigration reform. The two processes separate at the point of legitimacy—immigration
reform is deemed legitimate and nativism considered illegitimate—but they are similar to
the extent that each process leaves an indelible mark on immigration and immigrant

policies.

The Importance of Immigration Reform
Concerns pertaining to international migration reemerged in the early 19703. Since then,
the unease has only grown. Developed and developing countries regularly expel guest
workers, redirect refugee flows, curb legal and illegal entries, and delimit citizenship
(Papademetriou and Hamilton 1996; Weiner 1995). The apprehension is not universally
experienced or executed, as the global dimensions of the migratory processes are uneven

and changing, but remains a transforrnative force in national and international relations.

11

National Dimensions

One critical dimension of the incorporation process is established by national
governments as they influence migration decisions and look to diverse membership
models (from assimilation to multiculturalism) to integrate immigrants and their children.
While immigration laws and membership rights are only two dimensions of a
multidimensional process, they constitute one of the most critical contexts of reception
influencing the incorporation of immigrants and their descendants into the United States
(Portes and Rumbaut 1996: 84-92; Soysal 1994).

The policies designed to manage immigration often engender unforeseeable
consequences. For example, the unprecedented rush toward citizenship in the last few
years has been attributed to restrictive measures, particularly California’s Proposition
187, the 1996 Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Restrictionist in intent,
these strategies have backfired. In trying to reduce the presumed lure of social benefits,
Congress unintentionally created more immigration by widening the gap between citizens
and noncitizens, thereby encouraging naturalization. Unlike family members of legal
noncitizen immigrants, the spouses and minor children of naturalized immigrants can
immediately enter the United States outside of established quotas. “Thus, each new
person that becomes a US. citizen creates more people entitled to immigrate to the
United States without numerical restriction and new classes of people entitled to come in
under numerically limited categories” (Massey 1998). These actions have also been
associated with the political right and apparently persuaded many of the newly

naturalized to affiliate with the Democratic party (Booth 1996; McDonnell 1996).

12

Notwithstanding these outcomes, one wonders what other kinds of consequences might
follow? When immigrants are “coerced” into becoming citizens, how will they view
their newfound status—as an invitation to participate in the civic culture or as an

insurance policy against future measures?

International Dimensions

In settling questions of admittance, enforcement, and incorporation, government practices
are a potential item in international relations. When governments violate the human
rights of their citizens, fail to quell civil unrest, or generally create conditions conducive
to emigration, people are apt to cross national boundaries. When they do so, receiving
countries generally conclude they have acquired the right to intervene in the affairs of the
sending country. In 1994, the US. occupation of Haiti and negotiations with Cuba, were
both provoked, in part, by migration flows. What were once regarded as national affairs
are now considered international issues (Mitchell 1992; Rumbaut 1996: 28; Sassen 1996;
Weiner 1995: 14-15; 1997: 188-90).

Even larger in scope, the immigration policies formulated in highly developed
countries like the United States regularly conflict with other major policy frameworks
and human rights regimes and codes (Sassen 1996). The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) attempts to create border-free economic spaces, but does not
foresee a proportional opening of labor markets. Much like colonial and neo-colonial
bonds, economic links simultaneously invite the movement of capital and people.
Formulating immigration policy as if it were a strictly national matter can, and does, lead
to detrimental consequences for citizens and migrants alike (Massey 1998: 22-27; Sassen

1996: 74-88). Women are especially susceptible to changes in immigration policy

13

because legal immigration to the US. has—for much of the past 50 years—been
predominantly female (Fitzpatrick 1997).

National states are also increasingly accountable to international agreements and
human rights codes. The tight linkage between citizenship and human rights has been
expanded as national governments are increasingly expected to observe international
instruments and conventions which confer rights on persons instead of citizens (Kerber
1997; Sassen 1996).4 By disregarding international codes, this “ecumenism of human
rights” (Berger 1997), nation-states undermine their own legitimacy and jeopardize
relations with other states (Sassen 1996; Weiner 1997).

National and international processes must be understood relationally. The
formulation and reformulation of immigration policy is a strategic research site for
examining the relation and tension between the ideas of state sovereignty and human
rights, the preservation of national sovereignty and safeguarding of human lives and
prerogatives (Sassen 1996: 60-63). A comprehensive understanding of immigration
reform (intentional actions designed to produce or prevent change in current immigration
realities) requires that current efforts be clearly defined and historically situated. It also
requires an understanding of the worldviews (constructed from interviews and
publications) which fundamentally incite and interpret today’s contexts and changes.
Knowing why people become involved in immigration reform and understanding the
meanings they attach to immigration is of practical and theoretical significance.
Ultimately, this dissertation redefines nativism by examining the historical record and

reconstructing the worldviews of immigration activists.

l4

Dissertation Plan and Approach
As noted earlier, immigration scholars and journalists often use the term “nativism” to
describe and analyze events they deem “anti-immigrant,” but the concept is often used as
if its meaning was unmistakable (Bosniak 1997). Efforts to reduce immigration flows
and/or the advantages of permanent residency are often characterized as “nativist” or
“nativistic” by those who oppose such initiatives, but on what basis? The answer to this
question is explored in Chapter 2 by uncovering the constitutive properties of the process,
examining their historical and social underpinnings, and arranging their interrelations into
a plausible definition. Designed to demystify the phenomena of American nativism, the
proposed definition integrates empirical and evaluative observations into one coherent
process.

In Chapter 3, the central questions of this study are reiterated. They are: What is
American nativism?, Under what conditions does heightened nativist activity occur? and
What does immigration mean to people involved in immigration reform? The multiple
research methods used to explore these questions are delineated, as are the assumptions
and perspectives which contributed to the overall design of this investigation. The
specifics of historical-comparative and field research methods are fully described,
particularly the semi-structured interviews and analysis of written and visual records.
This overview will explain the methodological and theoretical rationale behind the
interviews and describe the interview settings, recruitment procedures, format, and

respondent pool.

 

‘ The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, 1975
Helsinki Accords, and 1990 UN lntemational Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families, are all such examples.

15

In terms of methodological technique this research is a mixture of grounded
theory (Strauss 1991) and the extended case method (Burawoy et al. 1991). My analysis
of American nativism is largely built upon (or grounded in) the data I have collected.
Because theory develops during the process of data collection (Strauss 1991: 23), this
approach provided the kind of flexibility needed for exploratory research. However,
unlike the grounded theory approach, I do not seek generalizations across diverse social
situations (see Burawoy et al. 1991: 275-76), nor do I develop an analysis of American
nativism by relying exclusively on micro-level observations. Rather, I contrast
phenomena, organizations, and interview data for the purpose of better understanding
nativistic contexts and the people promoting and opposing these circumstances. I use
these observations to build theory and reconstruct existing analyses in the final chapter.
In line with the extended case method, I have tried to uncover the “macro foundations of
a microsociology” (Burawoy 1991: 282) without ignoring the micro-level interactions
which ultimately contribute, in ways rarely specified, to social structures.

Chapter 4 identifies the constitutive properties of nativism by comparing the
multifarious reactions confronted by immigrants and their descendants throughout the
history of American nativism. These observations were incorporated into the definition
of nativism introduced in Chapter 2, but the conditions associated with nativist initiatives
are primarily examined at this juncture. This investigation does not systematically
analyze every occurrence of American nativism, but places some of the more infamous
events into one of three nativist eras: religious nativism (1600-1859), racial and radical

nativism (1860-1929), and wartime nativism and emerging anxieties (1930-1998). These

16

phases are not discrete, but organize events according to the prevailing interests and
concerns typically sighted during these times.

Chapters 5 and 6 examine the people and organizations involved in immigration
reform. Interviews with expansionists and restrictionists, along with a content analysis of
immigration reform agency documents and archives, illuminates the major issues
dividing immigration reform activists. Interviews with immigration advocates furthers
our understanding of what immigration means to them and the roles they play in shaping
public policy and opinion. These chapters, along with Chapter 4, deepen our
understanding of immigrant reception and immigration reform, which revolve on an axis
of politics where there is no clear liberal or conservative position. Rather, the
worldviews of advocates are distinguished by, among other factors, their different visions
of immigrants, natural resources, human nature, the nation-state and globalism.

In light of the historical and interview data, the definition of American nativism
proposed in Chapter 2 will be critically examined in Chapter 7. The interplay between
meaning systems, social context, and social structures is explored. Consulting
expansionists and restrictionists, and grounding their perspectives in various institutions
(e.g., citizenship and national sovereignty) social locations, and unique experiences,
provides a nuanced analysis of nativism relatively free of the grand abstractions where
people are objectified and social structures reified. A preliminary attempt to explain
nativism is suggested and compared to explanations offered by other social scientists.

In sum, the proposed research aims to reconceptualize the concept of nativism for
the purpose of exploring and explaining how and why nativism occurs in the United

States. Multiple research methods are used to examine the conditions under which

17

heightened nativist activity occurs and understand why certain individuals become
collectively involved in organized efforts to reform current immigration and immigrant
policies. Using historical-comparative methods, the basic elements of nativist reactions
are identified and developed into a set of criteria for comparing varied cases of immigrant
reception. Interviews with individuals who promote and oppose immigration restriction
in the United States, along with a provisional content analysis of immigration reform
agency documents and archives, furthers our understanding of what immigration means
to immigration activists and the roles they play in shaping public policy and opinion. The
collected data are analyzed in order to develop a conceptual scheme for examining the
different discourses, beliefs, and behaviors of immigration activists, and will be

compared to dominant perspectives on nativism and intergroup hostility.

l8

CHAPTER 2

THE DISCOURSE AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF NATIVISM

The term “nativism” simultaneously signifies what behavior is and what it should be. It
is used to designate certain attitudes and actions as undeserving of consideration (Bosniak
1997). But it also describes a process. The normative assumptions underpinning this
classification process are incorporated into a sociological definition of American
nativism. Using social expectations to delimit the basic parameters of nativism promotes
an interpretation relatively free of personal judgments by emphasizing social, rather than
personal, standards.

To this end, four analytical models (nationalism, resource competition, prejudice,
and group position) of American nativism will be reviewed. Each model envisions
different motivational systems and circumstances in explaining the emergence of nativist
phenomena. To varying degrees, all four perspectives combine ideological and structural
points of view. However, the group position model supplies the most satisfactory micro-
macro linkage by placing national identities and perceptions of threat within the legal and
social contexts of native advantage.l

Parts of this framework are used to connect the discourse and social organization
of American nativism. The legal basis of nativism is established by national constitutions
and treaty law (Habermas 1996; Sassen 1996: 64-67), which in turn secure their
legitimacy by extending de facto recognition to national sovereignty. While international

law and transnational realities increasingly circumscribe the exercise of sovereign power

 

' Analyses of racial phenomena, especially by Blumer (1958), Bonilla-Silva (1997), Collins (1991), Cornell
(1996), Omi and Winant (1994), Wellrnan (1994), and Winant (1994; 1997) have informed my analysis of
native phenomena and been adapted to the exigencies of American nativism.

l9

(Appadurai 1996; Soysal 1994; Sassen 1996; Weiner 1997), the principles of national
sovereignty and national interest currently serve as the final arbiters of appropriate and
inappropriate conduct with respect to immigration reform. In addition to other values and
beliefs, these principles inform our conventional understandings of where immigration
reform ends and nativism begins, and generally serve to structure the discourse over

immigration reform (Bosniak 1997: 285).

Examining Nativism
Because nativism is associated with a variety of beliefs and behaviors, its meaning is
imprecise. Scholars have used the term to denote, among other things, hostility towards
immigrants and aspiring immigrants, the aversion to “foreign” religions and “foreign”
peoples, the defense of cultural values, and efforts to protect America from “foreigners”
residing in the US. (e.g., see Beck 1992; Bennett 1995; Bergquist 1986; Billington 1963;
Bosniak 1997; Higham 1992; Leonard and Parmet 1971). One variety of nativism, that
based on considerations of race and ethnicity, is “unquestionably the most common”
today, in both the scholarly literature and everyday usage (Bosniak 1997: 282).

Nativism is generally associated with immigration and immigrants, but has also
been applied to events in which native-born Americans were perceived and/or treated as
“aliens” in some sense. The word “alien,” which generally suggests that someone is “not
of one’s own,” incorporates all of these connotations and is used here to underscore this
perception. As Sartre points out, contrastive identities are more than simple categories.
They are also passions because they tells us who we are by telling us who we are not.
“Others” are a “pretext” for our identities. “By adhering to antisemitism, he is not only

adopting an opinion, he is choosing himself as a person” (1947: 177-78). Using the

20

example of an antisemite, Sarte explains: “The Jews existence simply allows the
antisemite to nip his anxieties in the bud by persuading himself that his place has always
been cut out in the world, that it was waiting for him and that by virtue of tradition he has
the right to occupy it” (1947: 178).

The descriptions and illustrations used in this chapter generally refer to
immigrants because the foreign-born usually bear the brunt of nativist initiatives. This
decision rests on the assumption that nativism suggests a posture towards immigration
and immigrants, towards resident immigrants and those seeking permanent residence.
The original meaning of nativism may or may not conform to this connotation (e.g., see
Beck 1992; 1994: 131-32), but this is inconsequential compared to the inferences
developed by individuals (Beck 1992: 147-48).

Developing a definition of nativism, and assessing its historical and contemporary
“fit,” is manageable when one is familiar with the perspective(s) from which it
originated. The following review examines some of these explanations and lays the
groundwork for the definition of nativism proposed later in the chapter. Each approach
leads to a different understanding and evaluation of the people and actions being

characterized as “nativist.”

Four Models

Analyses of nativism often resemble those applied to ethnic processes and interethnic
relations. For instance, scholars interpret nativism as a response to perceived group
threat or locate nativist hostility in individual prejudices and stereotypes (Bobo and
Hutchings 1996). Because nativist activities are usually interpreted after their

occurrence, the models and theories used to examine them seem plausible, if not perfect.

21

These interpretations are not mutually exclusive. In fact, scholars of nativism often use
more than one model to analyze nativist phenomena. They frequently explain the
occurrence of nativism by relying on one or more of the following analytical frameworks:
(1) nationalism, (2) resource competition, (3) prejudice, and/or (4) group position. This
restricted survey of theories inevitably overlooks other perspectives, such as world
systems theory (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991), colonialism theories (Blauner 1972), and
split-labor market theories (Bonacich 1980), but includes some of the more common
approaches.

Before delving into the specifics of each model, three caveats are in order. First,
there are a number of variants for each model. Consequently, to speak of a “nationalism
model” is misleading to the extent that there is no single nationalism model used by
scholars to examine nativism. Other scholars have, and would, most likely identify other
approaches and take issue with the content of the models I have outlined here (e. g., see
Bergquist 1986). Second, each scholar’s work is pigeonholed to some extent. Nativism
scholars tend to draw on multiple models throughout their analyses, but in order to
simplify the discussion, I have tried to fix upon each scholar’s primary interpretation.
Third, the perspectives of each researcher were undoubtedly shaped by the events they
examined and the historical circumstances surrounding them. If they had examined other
events, they may have used or developed different models to examine and explain their
occurrence. With these qualifications in mind, it is best to begin with a review of the two
most popular approaches—the nationalism and resource competition models.

1. Nationalism Nativism is routinely represented as a variant of American

nationalism or as competition for scarce resources. Two factors can partially account for

22

the prevalence of these interpretations. First, the discourse on immigration reform is
decidedly national and economic in content, often referring to cultural and fiscal “costs.”
The “rhetoric of exclusion” frequently contains arguments about limited resources and
national sovereignty (e.g., Chavez 1997; Kawanabe 1996; Knapp 1996). Second, both of
these perspectives are utilized in the preeminent work on American nativism, John
Higham’s Strangers in the Land (1992). Although Higham integrated both national ideas
and resource competition into his analysis (e.g., see 1992: 53) he generally interpreted
nativism as a defensive type of nationalism: “Specific nativistic antagonisms may, and
do, vary widely in response to the changing character of minority irritants and the shifting
conditions of the day; but through each separate hostility runs the connecting, energizing
force of modern nationalism” (Higham 1992: 4; Higham 1958: 150). This perspective,
and the definition which fosters it, have been adopted by numerous scholars (e.g., see
Friedman 1967; Lane 1987: 21; Perea 1997: 1).

This has been especially true of historians, who often apply Higham’s approach
by connecting nativism to the nationalist pendulum of American interests and fears. For
example, the increasing political strength of immigrant groups and job competition were
partly responsible for the rise of the Know Nothings in the 18508, but, according to
Michael Holt, largely because they were “regarded as dangerously un-American” (1973:
327, italics added). In American Nativism, 1830-1860 (1971 ), Leonard and Parmet define
nativism as an attempt to “safeguard America” from certain perceived threats, and
conclude that: “All nativists. . .regardless of geography or social position, had one thing in
common. They were able to identify with a primary belief in ‘Americanism’” (pp. 6,

108). In perhaps the most inclusive survey of American nativism, The Party of F ear:

23

From Nativist Movements to the Far Right in American History (1995), David Bennett
stresses the importance of “uh-American” ideas, but like Higham, also attributes the
emergence of nativism to “objective” conditions, such as economic competition (1995:
xii, 3-12). Bennett concludes, however, that the “nativist tradition passed into history”
after World War II, largely because “un-A merican” ideas were no longer imputed
exclusively to “alien peoples,” as illustrated by the anti-communist crusades of the 19405
and 19503 (1995: 278, italics added). By reasoning that the historic break between “un-
American” ideas and “foreign” people marked the end of “traditional” nativism, Bennett
(1995) seemingly chose to interpret nativism, first and foremost, as a process intensified
and sustained by some type of protective nationalism.

This defensive kind of nationalism is the cornerstone of Higham’s analysis. His
discriminating analysis in Strangers in the Land can largely be attributed to a painstaking
effort to delimit the concept of nativism. He stressed that ethnocentric reactions to
immigrants are not intrinsically nativistic, but “become so only when integrated with a
hostile and fearful nationalism” (1992: 24). In an effort to avoid labeling every type of
unfriendliness toward immigrants as nativist (1958: 150), Higham defined nativism as
“an intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (i.e., ‘un-
American’) connections” (1992: 4). While drawing on ethnocentric and, sometimes,
racist ideas, “nativism translates them into a zeal to destroy the enemies of a distinctively
American way of life” (1992: 4). He used this approach to identify three nativist
themes—anti-Catholic, anti-radical, and racial nativism.

Higham’s (1992) analysis of American nativist thought in Strangers has

seemingly become the standard by which related works are measured (Dinnerstein and

24

Reirners 1986). His definition of nativism, and its continued relevance, has been assessed
on numerous occasions, most notably in The Catholic Historical Review in 195 8,
American Jewish History in 1986, and at the 1996 Social Science Research Council’s
Conference on lntemational Migration to the United States. On each occasion, Higham
and others re-examined his original formulation, and to all appearances, came to agree on
its strengths and weaknesses. In particular, Higham questioned the prominence he
assigned to nationalism in conceptualizing nativism (1958: 154; 1992: 342) and
considered his treatment of ethnocentrism, and its relationship to nativism, to be the
principal shortcoming of his work (1996: 5-6). Whether or not scholars are aware of
these reflections, some of their interpretations approximate Higham’s original analysis in
Strangers.

Wimmer interprets nativism and racism as “ways of reassuring the national self
and its boundaries, as attempts at making sense of the world in times of crisis” (1997:
27). He argues that certain populations (e.g., immigrants) are regarded as a threat to the
national community, particularly by “downwardly mobile groups,” because they
seemingly interfere with the nation-state’s primary responsibility—“namely to look after
the well-being of its ‘owners’” (pp. 17, 30). Like Bennett (1995) and Higham (1992),
Wimmer interprets nativism as a mixture of nationalism and resource competition, but in
the end, concludes that aliens are viewed as illegitimate competitors for the state’s
resources and protection because they do not belong—in the eyes of natives—to the
national community (1997: 32).

In his examination of contemporary immigration reform proposals, Chavez

interprets nativism as a “nationalist response” to the “transnationalist challenge,” sparked

25

by the newest wave of immigration (1997: 73). Chavez argues that natives are not only
troubled by the fiscal impacts of immigrants, but by their “races” and cultures as well.
Immigrants “undermine the notion of a singular American identity. . .as the transnational
movements of people across borders—both political and cultural—underscore the
disorder inherent in the order implied by the fiction of a singular cultural heritage” (1997:
66, 73).

By focusing on nationalist ideas, Higham avoided labeling as nativist every
reaction against immigrants or immigration, but admittedly slighted underlying social
processes, such as ethnic integration and resource competition (1958: 150-55). This
pitfall was usually avoided by his successors who viewed nativism as an attitude arising
from interethnic tensions rather than as an intellectual phenomenon (Bergquist 1986:
128). But Higham’s decision to place nationalism at the center of his analysis deserves
serious consideration.

Because the touchstone of restrictionist (and expansionist) initiatives are justified
as being in the nation’s best interest (Light 1996: 59), a certain type of nationalism
propels them, or at the very least, is used to legitimate them. This distinction between
nationalism as an impetus and nationalism as a vocabulary is necessary if we are to keep
the influence of ideas and usage of ideas analytically separate. In so doing, one avoids
the assumption that people’s explanations for their behaviors are the causes of it. Clearly,
the forces “behind” an action and the ensuing explanations that are used to justify it are
not always the same (Mills 1940). Distinguishing between the influence and usage of
nationalism can be rather complicated, but discerning the kind of nationalism underlying

a given nativist movement is not as difficult to discern. For example, both restrictionists

26

and expansionists contend that their suggestions for reform are in the national interest.
However, expansionists define this interest largely in terms of the economy whereas
restrictionists generally define it in terms of the environment.

Calhoun makes it clear that nationalism “is not an intrinsically ‘bad’ ideology,”
especially when it affirms differences instead of promoting the “pseudo-democracy of
sameness” (1994: 25). Light makes a similar point when he contends that the self-
intcrest of the nation-state often requires “it to ignore, dampen, or even suppress popular
ethno-chauvinism and racism rather than intensify them” (1996: 59). Just as low
immigration initiatives can be nationalistic in that they accentuate the interests of the
nation-state, so too can high immigration initiatives be nationalistic when maintaining or
increasing “high” immigration levels is seen as being in the nation’s best interest (pp. 59-
60). Obviously, as Higham made clear in Strangers, it is the kind of nationalism at work
that is decisive.

These observations prompt three critical questions. First, how does one explain
the emergence of an exclusive, instead of an inclusive, nationalism (e.g., see Higham
1992: 27)? Second, why do “nativist” arguments not “appeal equally to all members of a
society” (Wimmer 1997: 31; also see Blumer 1958)? And thirdly, when making
distinctions between “they” and “we,” why do nativists bank on a national identity rather
than one based upon class, religion, gender, age, etc.? (Wimmer 1997: 27; also see Basch,
Glick Schiller, and Szanton Blanc 1995: 35-45). The answers to these questions are
debated and very complex, but Wimmer’s phenomenological approach to interpreting
nativism and racism (1997: 27-33)-—-which is very similar to the nationalism framework

outlined here—ventures an explanation characteristic of other nationalism models.

27

In general, the nationalism model attributes the emergence of nationalist feelings
to societal crises. But societal crises do not always provoke an exclusive nationalism, so
where does this arrangement of ideas and interests come from? The answer to this
question directs us to the third question: why do nativists rely on a nationalistic self-
image? Or even more fundamentally, how do people come to see themselves as
“natives”? Wimmer (1997), following Benedict Anderson (1994), suggests that certain
events in the late 18008 accounted for the emergence of what Anderson calls an
“imagined community”— a sovereign, limited, imagined political community (1994: 5-
7). The national community is imagined “because the members of even the smallest
nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them,
yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 1994: 6).
Within this imagined community the “rights of participation and solidarity appear as
collective goods of a nation with the state as its guardian” (Wimmer 1997: 28). Over
time, access to state power and services were restricted to members of the nation-state,
which had the “combined effect of state, culture and territory seeming to belong to
members of the nation” (1997: 29). Thus, the state is “owned by the people who have
been united into a nation” (p. 29). In the case of the United States, political and social
membership has been, and is, circumscribed by considerations of gender, race, nativity,
religion, and sexuality (e.g., see Chapter 4).

As indicated above, scholars working within a nationalism framework (with
respect to nativism) tend to rely on historical interpretations and discourse analyses to
demonstrate the plausibility of their perspectives. Espenshade and Hempstead (1996),

however, used quantitative methods to uncover a strong correlation between restrictionist

28

immigration sentiments and isolationist attitudes. While there is no shortage of
illustrations, there is admittedly little empirical support for some of the explanations
proposed by scholars using a nationalism perspective to interpret nativism, especially as
it relates to the process of nativism (Wimmer 1997).

Three years after the publication of Strangers, Higham published an essay entitled
“Another Look at Nativism” and suggested that nativism be viewed as an attitude arising
fiom ethnic integration where competition for resources and prestige arose from
interethnic conflict, rather than from irrational myths (1958: 147-52). He observed that
the concept of nativism had “proved serviceable only for understanding the extreme and
fanatical manifestations of ethnic discord” and thereby neglected the “less spectacular but
more steadily sustained contentions imbedded in the fabric of our social organization”
(1958: 151). This insight—that nativism is maintained by a more regular and less
striking set of exclusionary ideas and practices—has been incorporated into other
interpretations. Specifically, resource competition models tend to emphasize
exclusionary practices, while the nationalism, prejudice and symbolic interactionism
models regularly focus on exclusionary ideas.

2. Resource Competition Theories of native-alien competition are comparable
to competition theories of ethnicity. From this perspective, competition for scarce
resources thickens ethnic boundaries, contributes to the formation of new ethnic groups
(ethnogenesis), and fuels ethnic conflicts and movements (Nagel 1995; Roosens 1989).
Similarly, hostility between natives and aliens originates in contexts where the supply of

certain resources (economic, political, etc.) is exceeded by the demand for them.

29

The assumptions of rational choice theory underpin many of the generalizations
advanced in resource competition theories (Banton 1995: 489). Perhaps the most
prevalent assumption is that there is an objective basis for intergroup conflict. In
describing what they call the “simple self-interest model,” Bobo and Hutchings (1996)
conclude: “Objective personal vulnerability to economic or political deprivation provides
the direct basis for intergroup hostility” (p. 953). Resource competition models often
adopt Max Weber’s concept of social closure to explain nativist phenomena. Social
closure occurs when one social group takes “some externally identifiable characteristic of
another group of (actual or potential) competitors—race, language. . .residence, etc.” as a
pretext for attempting to close certain social and economic opportunities to them (Weber
1922/1968, cited in Stone 1995: 397). The concept of social closure has been used to
juxtapose difi’erent models of citizenship (Brubaker 1992) and compare American and
Canadian nativist activities (McCauley 1990).

Scholars frequently look to unemployment rates, wage scales, and immigration
levels to gauge job market competition. Much of the quantitative research on American
attitudes toward US. immigration levels and immigrant populations correlates this kind
of aggregate data (and micro-level factors) with receptivity to US. immigration (e.g., see
Espenshade and Hempstead 1996). Correlations between job market competition and
receptivity to immigration frequently demonstrate that proxies for job competition do not
reliably predict immigration attitudes (Wimmer 1997: 20-21, 34-35). One could argue
that such aggregate data cannot predict individual responses and has little relevancy to
competition in specific industries (Banton 1995: 487; Wimmer 1997: 20). However, even

when these qualifying factors are taken into account, as they are by Susan Olzak (1986:

30

24-42; 1993), Wimmer illustrates that it is not real competition, but the perception of
competition, which provokes racist and nativist reactions. The resource competition
model is not annulled by this qualification, “but rather the thesis of conflict turning on
individual goods such as jobs or housing. It seems more probable that ethnic conflicts as
well as xenophobic movements are waged over collective goods” (Wimmer 1997: 21,
italics in original). Researchers stressing the importance of perception and collective
definition in fueling nativist acts often interpret nativistic processes as the outcome of
group positions, a perspective which will be discussed shortly.

Historical analyses of nativism are replete with references to job competition and
economic jealousy. Leonard Pitt concludes that “[s]heer economic jealousy. . .brought on
the first xenophobia” in nineteenth-century California (1961: 24), and according to David
Hellwig, much of the “black response” to immigrants between 1830 and 1930 can be
described as “nativistic.” “Black dislike of the foreign-born, unlike that of most whites,
was rooted in envy and resentment” (1982: 90). However, even though blacks frequently
viewed the Chinese and Japanese as job competitors in the late 18003, the majority of
blacks consistently rejected measures proposing the exclusion or curbing of Asian
immigration (1982: 91; also see Rubin 1978). Hellwig interprets this decision as a
rational response to objective conditions:

Like many whites they [blacks] often feared the impact of aliens on traditional
American values and institutions and not infrequently were quite vociferous in
expressing their concerns. But some features of American society that they—as
blacks—sought to protect and extend, white nativists rejected; namely, the image of
the United States as a free, open and dynamic society, a nation in which diversity
was affinned rather than feared. As an oppressed minority incapable of large-scale
passing, self-interest dictated that they support a fluid social structure in which

people would be treated on their merits rather than on the basis of ascribed status
(1982: 91-92, italics added).

31

By connecting patterns of black nativism to economic and political interests, Hellwig
depicts black nativism as a response to competition with immigrants for political and
economic resources. Whereas job competition is more objective, and “economic
jealousy” more subjective, Hellwig tends to privilege the role of objective conditions in
accounting for the occurrence of nativism among African Americans (e.g., see pp. 88-90)

In Solidarity or Survival ?, A.T. Lane (1987) examines the reception afforded
immigrants from southern and eastern Europe by American labor between 1830 and
1924. Sensitive to a variety of interpretations, Lane appreciates the complex mixture of
motives and circumstances surrounding nativist phenomena. The features of immigrant
communities (e.g., the scope of their skills and occupations, degree of geographical
concentration, and political participation), the destabilizing effects of technological
innovation, and prevailing prejudices of the day—to name only a few factors—can, and
did, influence the ways in which American workers responded to immigration (1987: 20-
23). Lane nevertheless concludes that the varied responses of American labor were
clearly rooted in an effort to protect themselves from the political influence and economic
competition posed by foreign-born labor (pp. 22-32). To describe Lane’s interpretation
as “resource competition” is not to ignore the other determinants that he so carefully
weighed, but to conclude that this was his primary interpretation.

On the contemporary front, researchers studying the economic and demographic
impacts of immigrants on American society probably garner more headlines and journal
space than researchers investigating other immigration-related issues. While increasing
the United State’s economic productivity is only one of “five principal goals of US.

immigration policy” (Fix and Passel 1994: 13), researchers understand that economic

32

considerations are usually paramount to policy analysts and legislators (Light 1996: 61).
When researchers conclude that immigrants are an economic asset (or at least a benign
influence) to a certain economy or population, calls for restriction are thought nativistic,
but if immigrants are judged to be an economic liability, calls for restriction are
considered reasonable.

While numerous scholars and journalists explain nativism as some form of
competition for resources, their assumptions and foci vary. For instance, George Borjas,
a Harvard professor and Cuban emigre, and William Frey, a University of Michigan
researcher, both utilize the resource competition model to analyze immigration, but in
different ways. For Borjas, the underlying assumption is that immigration “changes how
the economic pie is sliced up,” with some natives gaining and other natives losing (Borjas
1996: 4-6). He reasons that the most appropriate model for assessing the economic
impact of immigrants on the United States is one attentive to resource competition.

William Frey (1995a; 1996), on the other hand, applies the resource competition
model to the out-migration of native whites from high immigration states. Unlike Borjas,
however, Frey uses the resource competition approach to not only examine the domestic
migration of native-born whites, but also to explain why native whites are leaving
California, New York, Texas, and other high immigration states. Relying on regression
coefficients and anecdotal evidence, Frey makes various assrunptions about the multiple
motivations (e.g., job competition, rising taxes) behind the migration patterns of native
whites in high immigration states (1995b). The resource competition model, then, has
been used to examine nativism-related issues and, although carelessly at times, to

speculate about the various motivations influencing individual-level decisions. Much of

33

the same can be said about each of the models being reviewed here, but this is perhaps
especially true of the prejudice model.

3. Prejudice According to the sociocultural model of prejudice, a psychological
and largely irrational calculus underlies racial conflict. Unlike resource competition
models, which interpret racist and nativist behavior as a rational response to objective
conditions, contemporary theories of prejudice generally assume there is a subjective and
irrational basis for nativist and racist hostility (Bobo and Hutchings 1996: 953-54).
Typifying this perspective is one of the earliest works on nativism, Ray Billington’s The
Protestant Crusade 1800-1860 (1963 ). In Billington’s analysis there is little difference
between what he calls “antipapal prejudice” and nativism (1963: 4). Because anti-
Catholicism “played so large a part in pre-Civil War nativist thinking. . .historians have
sometimes regarded nativism and anti-Catholicism as more or less synonymous”
(Higham 1992: 5). However, some scholars continue to examine nativism as a process
directed by prejudiced individuals (not necessarily against Catholics) or individuals given
to conspiracy theories.

Two popular works emphasizing the psychological and irrational qualities of
“antialien” activity, but which focus more on the “conspiratorial” aspects of nativism
than on prejudice per 3e, are Richard Hofstadter’s essay (1996) “The Paranoid Style in
American Politics” (originally published in 1952) and The Politics of Unreason (Lipset
and Raab 1978). Both of these works argue that conspiracy theories play a central role in
nativist activities (e.g., Hofstadter 1996: 4, 29, 39; Lipset and Raab 1978: 490).
According to Hofstadter, a “paranoid mentality” or “paranoid disposition” is “mobilized

into action chiefly by social conflicts that involve ultimate schemes of values and. . .bring

34

fundamental fears and hatreds, rather than negotiable interests, into political action”
(1996: 39). Similar to the authoritarian personality model (Adorno, F renkel-Brunswiek,
Levinson, and Stanford 1950; Brown 1995), the personalities of certain nativists render
them susceptible to conspiracy theories describing how their national, or cultural, way of
life is threatened by powerful, yet subtle, forces (Hofstadter 1996: 4, 29). Similarly,
Lipset and Raab define nativism as a “strong attachment to a reference group to which
one has, so to speak, ‘been born’” and contend that conspiracy theories are a critical
element in “nativist bigotry” (1978: 488, 490).

There is nothing inherently prejudicial about conspiracy theories. However, both
approaches assume that the inability of certain individuals to cope with profound changes
in society (particularly in terms of their own social status) manifests itself in various
forms of prejudice (i.e., the “paranoid style” and “nativist bigotry”). While these works
at various points do emphasize objective conditions (e.g., see Hofstadter 1996: 39; Lipset
and Raab 1978: 268-69), their orientations toward the irrational and psychological, as
captured in the concept of conspiracy theories, is comparable to other approaches
associated with the prejudice approach.

Contemporary research has largely moved away from this type of analysis to one
that regards various prejudices, or the ethnocentric beliefs that support such attitudes, as
the foundation upon which nativist activities are built. Rogers Smith defines nativism as
an extreme form of “ethnocultural Americanism” (1988: 228) and Juan Perea contends
that nativists try to reinforce America’s “core culture” by labeling these traits and
cultures at odds with this core as “uh-American” or “foreign” (1992: 278). After

surveying 458 adult residents in a Wisconsin community, Ruefle, Ross, and Mandel]

35

(1993) found that ethnocentrism accounted for most of the variance in attitudes toward
Southeast Asian refugees when controlling for various economic and demographic
factors.

Compared to nationalism and resource competition models, the sociocultural
model of prejudice has few adherents. That prejudice and ethnocentrism contribute to
many nativist initiatives is seemingly an unquestioned assumption among students of
nativism. For scholars, however, the critical question is not whether or not prejudice or
ethnocentrism contributes to nativism, but rather to what extent these attitudes influence
nativist outcomes. According to Higham, ethnocentrism provides the “cultural subsoil”
in which nativism grows:

An ethnocentrism that applied largely to “mere habits of life,” that raised no

question of the newcomers patriotism or his ultimate assimilation, could survive

side by side with a generally tolerant and receptive outlook. Yet we cannot afford

to ignore the simpler ethnocentric judgments that persist beneath the ebb and flow

of nativism. Although these judgments often exist where nativism does not, they

provide the cultural subsoil in which it grows (1992: 24).
For Higham, then, the relationship between ethnocentrism and nativism is
straightforward—ethnocentrism can, and often does, contribute to nativism by arousing
certain concerns or justifying various actions, but in the final analysis, its presence is not
imperative. What makes one event “nativistic” and another event not, will be discussed
in the second half of this chapter, but before one can outline any kind of nativist criteria,
it is necessary to review and assess the group position framework.

4. Group Position From a group position perspective, comprehending an
individual’s “defmition of the situation” (Thomas and Thomas 1928) is the key to

understanding collective processes like nativism. In this sense, the group position

approach is very similar to symbolic interactionism. For this reason, it is necessary to

36

interj ect brief descriptions of symbolic interactionism when delineating the group
position approach.

By utilizing an individual’s point of view to understand collective action,
symbolic interactionism is first and foremost a subjectivist sociology. Instead of social
structure, the imagery of social process is used to understand how people come to
interpret, and act toward, “social objects,” such as immigrants or immigration policy (Lal
1995: 421-23). Focus is placed on an individual’s perceptions and decisions, but this
emphasis is tempered by the understanding that one’s personal abilities and choices are
profoundly influenced by their historical circumstances and relative power.2

To varying degrees, the perspectives presented thus far—nationalism, resource
competition, and prejudice—have considered, to varying degrees, the perceptions of
natives. What separates the group position model from these models—with respect to
nativism—is its attempt to simultaneously interpret the symbolic and material interests
affecting these perceptions. Nationalism and prejudice models accentuate the role of
symbolic identities (e.g., “American,” “foreigner,” or any other relevant, contrastive
identity) in triggering nativist initiatives, whereas resource competition models tend to
focus on the material interests of nativists. Even though Blumer’s original formulation

was not intended for such purposes, his group position model integrates all three

perspectives into a single, sociological framework.

 

2 “From the actor’s point of view, the world consists of social objects—that is, anything that the actor can
name...The meaning of an object is conferred on it on the basis of the ways in which people are prepared to
act toward the object. This in turn, reflects past socialization and social interaction. Old meanings may be
reinforced or emergent meanings may arise on the basis of current and future interaction or on the basis of
imagination. The meanings of objects are considered through a process of interpretation during which the
actor takes into account the relevant objects in the situation he or she eonfi'onts, including the activities of
others, the anticipated activities of others, conventional definitions of the situation, past experience, goals,
interests, values, and so on” (Lal 1995: 423).

37

Blumer (1958) argued that racial discrimination results from a collective process
of racial identification where racial groups form conceptions of themselves and others.
By characterizing each other, they define their positions relationally, thereby contributing
to what Blumer calls a “sense of group position.” This sense of group position is a
product of history and everyday experience, in which the dominant group develops the
view that they are entitled to privileged (or prior) rights in certain spheres of
importance—a sense of group position in other words. When the dominant group senses
a challenge to its exclusive claims, racial discrimination is likely (Blumer 1958:3-5;
Quillian 1995: 588).

Scholars have recently begun to use Blumer’s group position model to examine
nativism and racism as responses to perceived threat. Quillian found that the average
degree of prejudice toward immigrants and racial minorities in each of the twelve
countries comprising the EEC (European Economic Community) was “strongly related to
the threat perceived by the dominant group resident there” (1995: 605). In his study,
different levels of prejudice between EEC countries could not be explained by individual
characteristics.

The economic conditions in a country and the size of the racial or immigrant group
influence people’s views of group relations, and in so doing influence prejudicial
attitudes. Threat is perceived by individuals, but its relationship to prejudice
depends on a comparison of the relations between dominant and subordinate social
groups” (1995: 606, italics added).
It is the positional relation of the dominant and subordinate groups which contributes to
intergroup hostility (Blumer 195 8). “The core factor in Blumer’s model is the subjective

image of where the in-group ought to stand vis-a-vis the out-group” (Bobo and Hutchings

1996: 955, italics in original).

38

Blumer’s framework has been used to examine other race-related phenomena
(e.g., see Bobo and Hutchings 1996; Bobo and Zubrinsky 1996; Smith 1981) but is
particularly attractive to scholars analyzing intergroup hostility because it bridges micro-
and macro-level processes. However, some of these works overlook Blumer’s emphasis
on the defining and redefining of subordinate groups and the role of one’s reference
group in shaping this ongoing process.

Blumer’s concept of group position resembles the concept of reference group. A
reference group is “that group whose outlook is used by the actor as the frame of
reference in the organization of his [or her] perceptual field” (Shibutani 1955: 565). A
sense of group position supplies the dominant group with a certain perspective.
Likewise, a reference group is a perspective, “an ordered view of one’s world. . .an order
of things remembered and expected as well as things actually perceived, an organized
conception of what is plausible and what is possible; it constitutes the matrix through
which one perceives his [or her] environment” (Shibutani 1955: 564).

The concept of reference group can account for choices that seemingly contradict
an individual’s best interests by focusing on the communication channels available to him
or her. People in different social, economic, or legal positions develop different
worldviews, not because there is anything intrinsic to these positions, but because their
similarity of position disposes them to a limited number of communication channels. By
participating in a restricted set of communication channels an individual can be oblivious
to alternatives (1955: 562-66).

Leaders and interest groups attempt to challenge or maintain the meaning of

certain social objects (e.g., “American”) through various forms of communication. Given

39

that every social world has some type of communication system and special symbols
(e.g., the English language) leaders can narrow or widen the social distance between
groups by controlling various communication systems to which they have access
(Shibutani and Kwan 1965: 227-28). Shaping people’s perspectives, of course, requires
power. The group position perspective is not only attentive to the material and symbolic
interests of groups, but also to the relative power of each.
Of course, the social world is much more complex because people simultaneously

participate in a number of social worlds:

Because of the case with which the individual may expose himself to a number of

communication channels, he may lead a segmentalized life, participating

successively in a number of unrelated activities. Furthermore, the particular

combination of social worlds differs from person to person; this is what led Simmel

to declare that each stands at that point at which a unique combination of circles

intersects (Shibutani 1955: 567).
In order to understand the worldviews of individuals one must access their unique
perspectives and learn about the social worlds in which they participate (Shibutani 1955:
567). This is the rationale behind the interviews conducted for this study (see Chapters 5-

7). However, before these interviews can be fruitfully examined, it is necessary explain

my perspective, which incorporates, to varying degrees, the four approaches just outlined.

Reviewing the Four Models

All four perspectives identify the perception of threat as the mainspring of nativism, but
they begin to separate at the specification of this threat. The nationalism model assumes
natives are threatened by “nu-American” ideas and practices, but the resource
competition model understands nativism as an outgrowth of competition between natives

and aliens. The prejudice model presumes nativists cope with societal change by

40

embracing certain prejudices and conspiracy theories, and the group position model
locates nativist hostility in a population’s sense of group position. It is argued that the
group position model incorporates the above interpretations into a coherent framework
which can account for the motivational systems underlying nativist attitudes and
behavior. Before elaborating on this approach, however, it is important to grasp how
each model pictures the genesis of nativism.

In each model, the process of nativism is initiated by people who see themselves
(in some sense) as natives, or by organizations contending that their proposals advance
the interests of the country at large. Although their goals and procedures vary, their
efforts are always directed towards “aliens.” This term is to be understood in its
etymological sense. “Alien” comes from the Latin word “alienus”—“of or belonging to
another person or place.” It generally refers to something or someone who is “not of
one’s own” (Oxford English Dictionary 1989: 314-15). Those who belong to another
family, race, or nation, are strangers or foreigners, and carmot, as far as “natives” are
concerned, be “of one’s own.” “Native” and “alien” are socially constructed and always
subject to revision.

Natives are threatened by an intrusion, which is—at its most basic level—a
perception of alien presence or behavior. This perception, however, is partly shaped by
the attendant expectations attached to the status of “native.” This status position is
lodged within the context of national sovereignty and the institution of citizenship. Even
though this legal and social foundation is implicitly recognized by nationalism, resource
competition, and prejudice models, they primarily focus on the ideology of nativism

rather than the structure of native advantage. It is argued that both components need to

41

be integrated and that the group position approach is ideally suited for combining nation-
related ideas (like national sovereignty and “native”) to the institutions which reflect and
enforce these ideas (like citizenship and immigration policies).

Placing these components under one conceptual roof necessitates a discussion of
legitimacy. The term “nativism” suggests that certain attitudes and actions are
illegitimate, and because the legitimacy of a given political practice is rooted in values
and their formal codification, it is necessary to examine the normative assumptions
underpinning the debates over immigration reform and the system of native advantage in

which these deliberations take place.

The Discourse and Social Organization of Nativism
When racism is considered a purely ideological phenomenon, the social hierarchies
influencing relations between racial groups are generally disregarded. This idealist
conception of racism tends to use social-psychological terms (e.g., belief, irrational
thinking, prejudice, and overt behavior) to analyze racial discrimination. This
perspective, however, tends to regard racial phenomena as “abnormal,” overlooks subtle
expressions of racism and ignores the rational foundations upon which racism rests
(Bonilla-Silva 1997; Wellman 1994). I use Bonilla-Silva’s distinction between racism
(racial ideology) and racialized social systems (the structural foundations of racism) to
analyze the social organization of American nativism. Specifically, nativist processes are
maintained by a legal system of native advantage and legitimated by ideas of national
sovereignty and national interest. Configuring the relationship between the ideology and
social organization of nativism is best accomplished by situating these processes within

the larger debate over immigration reform, for it is here where the notion of national

42

sovereignty collides with the international right of emigration, and where the “normative
status” of each principle is tentatively settled.

Linda Bosniak (1997) argues that the concept of nativism simultaneously
describes and evaluates behavior and that the examination of nativist phenomena is
encumbered by their confounding:

The meaning of “nativism” is in important respects indeterminate to us, and we will
find ourselves unable to agree on whether any particular set of conditions in the
world can appropriately be described in these terms. But when we argue about
whether the current wave of immigration restrictionism should or should not be
characterized as “nativist,” we are not merely engaged in a dispute over social
classification. For quite beyond the empirical “correctness” of the label (even if we
could determine such a thing) in any given situation, the designation of a statement
or policy as “nativist” is laden with enormous normative significance... When we
ask, therefore, what it is that we are arguing about when we argue about nativism,
perhaps the best answer is that we are arguing about legitimacy (Bosniak 1997:
282-84, italics added).
Bosniak explains that the meaning of nativism is difficult to establish because—with
respect to immigration restriction—differing evaluations of the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of a given attitude or behavior form the foundation upon which
empirical criteria rest. However, she goes on to analyze nativism, and in particular, the
discourse over immigration reform, by focusing on the legitimacy and illegitimacy of
arguments advanced by immigration advocates. Her focus on legitimacy is the proper
starting point for a study of contemporary nativism but, as will be emphasized later, can

be reified if the wider social fabric is examined without referring to individual

perceptions and choices.

Debating Immigration Reform: Legitimacy and Perceptions of Nativism
When individuals argue about nativism they are often arguing about legitimacy, about the

normative status of their disagreements over immigration and other related issues. It is

43

the normative backdrop behind these debates that gives content to “our conventional
understandings of what nativism is” (Bosniak 1997: 284, 291). Bosniak suggests that
arguments for restricting immigration, if placed on a hypothetical legitimacy continuum,
“broadly frame our conventional understandings of where nativism begins and ends” and
“serve to structure the way we argue about immigration more generally” (1997: 285).

Today, she asserts, exclusionary arguments based on race fall on the illegitimate
end of the continuum, the “nativist” end. Although Peter Brimelow’s (1996) unrepentant
use of race-based arguments in Alien Nation may have may have opened the front door
for similar expressions, most restrictionists who agree with his assessment probably still
prefer the back door approach. At the legitimate end of the continuum we find
disagreements over the material costs of immigration. Expansionists rarely label such
arguments as “nativist,” although they do at times question the motives of those using
them to advance their appeals for restriction (Bosniak 1997: 284-88; Crawford 1992:
148-53).

We have, then, two “legitimacy benchmarks” structuring the way Americans
think and argue about immigration. They give us a general sense of what is socially
permissible with respect to the discourse on immigration. In the middle fall various
arguments about American culture. These arguments begin to slide toward the
illegitimate end of the spectrum if they are suspected of being proxies for race-based
arguments. A modification of Bosniak’s analysis (1997: 284-291) might look something

like this:

44

Illegitimate Legitimate

 

O f i : O
Race-based References to national References to economic
arguments culture, language, and environmental costs

assimilation, etc.

Figure 1 Contemporary Legitimacy Spectrum of Arguments for Restricting Immigration

Aside from the question of motives, however, what makes an argument legitimate or
illegitimate in the first place? Why are material arguments permissible? Bosniak’s
suggestion is worth quoting at length:

What I wish to emphasize about the debate over costs is its unspoken normative
backdrop: it presumes that determining who is right in empirical terms on the cost
question is dispositive of the immigration policy issue. It presumes, in other words,
that if immigrants could somehow be definitely determined to cost more than they
contribute, then restrictionists’ efforts to curtail immigration would be basically
unassailable on normative grounds. One is unlikely to hear the argument (except in
the refugee context, where the structure of normative argument is different) that it
is illegitimate to cut back on immigration if immigration is, in fact, shown to
materially disadvantage the nation. But why should this be? Why isn’t this
assumption, like so many others, up for normative debate? The reason is that we
live in a world in which it is ordinarily presumed that “compatriots take priority,”
in philosopher Henry Shue’s phrase; it is presumed that national immigration
policy should promote the welfare, first and foremost, of the national society’s
members. This is, after all, the normative heart of the principle of national
sovereignty: the sovereignty principle “affirms the priority of particular peoples——
the citizens of particular states—over any universalizing claims to humanity as
such”. . .One might well respond that the “national priority thesis” runs counter to a
powerful tradition in American political consciousness—the tradition of American
identity as “a nation of immigrants”. . .Yet even this “cosmopolitan” strain in
American national thought, as John Higham has called it, presumes that American
openness to immigrants serves American material interests. The point is that cost
arguments for immigration restriction presume that what counts in determining
immigration policy is the health and well-being of Americans. And as such, they
are unlikely to be regarded as illegitimate—or “nativist”—forms of argument, since
their underlying premise is treated as almost beyond question in our political
culture. Cost arguments may be wrong on the facts—and I think they often are—
but they are certainly not intrinsically “bad” (1997: 288-89).

Bosniak argues that the general acceptance of cost arguments is grounded in the notion

that the material interests of natives supercede those of aliens, or more abstractly, that the

45

legitimacy of material arguments are grounded in the notion of national sovereignty and
its correlate, the “national priority thesis.”

Her analysis, however, raises two questions that need to be addressed if the
normative assumptions underpinning nativism are to be incorporated into a plausible
definition of American nativism. With respect to immigration reform: (1) What is
legitimacy and on what bases does it rest? and (2) How has the concept of legitimacy
changed over time? A historically usable definition of nativism can be developed by

focusing on the legitimation and delegitimation of “immigration ideas.”

What is Legitimacy and What Are Its Bases?

Legitimacy is a desired quality. Political authorities and principles enjoy legitimacy
when their directives are regarded as “right” on some grounds, when constituents
consider a given authority structure or idea as binding on their actions (Albrow 1990:
161-63; Weber 1968: 31). “It was this binding nature on. . .participants which Weber
terms ‘legitimacy’” (Albrow 1990: 162).

Weber used the concept of legitimacy to reveal how social action (i.e., actions
directed toward other people) can be “guided by the belief in the existence of a legitimate
order” (Weber 1968: 31). Aside from the belief that a social order ought to exist, social
order does not solely depend upon the presence of common ideas or common values, but
frequently arises out of different and conflicting individual motivations (Albrow 1990:
162-165). For example, two controversial, immigrant-related bills proposed in 1996—
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act—were passed despite considerable

opposition. The citizens, advocacy groups, and national representatives who objected to

46

their provisions considered the bills, once they were enacted into law, as legitimate—that
is, as binding on their future actions. Why? Because the legitimacy of legal authority,
the predominant form of power (Herrschaft) exercised in the United States, “rests upon
rational grounds, themselves contingent upon the propensity of people to believe in the
validity of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to
issue commands” (Friedman 1981: 37; Weber 1968: 53, 215). In other words, legislation
(or more generally, political rule) is seen as binding if its enactment is realized according
to procedures the public considers legitimate (Mommsen 1989: 47). There is, however,
an exception to this argument. The legitimacy of a given law rests upon its formal
rationalization (i.e., “the successive tightening of its logical structure as a system of
ideas”) and its substantive rationalization (i.e., “the successive elaboration of the law’s
objectives”). When these two processes do not coincide, its legitimacy, or its “binding
nature,” is undermined (Friedman 1981: 54-56).

A diverse literature on legitimacy implies that the phenomenon of legitimacy is
most commonly analyzed as a relationship between political theory and political practice.
Legitimacy inheres in the relationship between these two caches of political conceptions.
Specifically, “the degree of legitimacy enjoyed by a regime rests upon a congruous
relationship between (1) political principles and practices, and (2) the rulers and the
ruled. Definitiveness regarding the concept ‘legitimacy’ has not been achieved, yet the
phenomenon is most commonly analde in terms of these two broad sets of variables”
(Friedman 1981: 16). For instance, a discrepancy between political principles (e.g.,

equality under the law) and political practices (e.g., racial discrimination) produces “a

47

sense of inappropriateness that undermines the image of the legitimate use of authority in
a regime” (1981: 16).

Weber’s discussion of “formal rationality” and “substantive rationality” helps
clarify the interdependent relationship between political theory and political practice and
the “origins” of legitimacy. Because the law has a logical structure, it can undergo
formal rationalization and because it has a substantive content, it can undergo substantive
rationalization. “Formal rationalization of law refers to the successive tightening. . .of the
law’s logical structure as a system of ideas,” and the substantive rationalization of the law
“refers to the successive elaboration of the law’s objectives” (Friedman 1981: 54). A
law’s meaning is derived from its purpose. The purpose of a law can be ethical,
ideological, religious, expediential, and so forth, but aside from its particular objectives,
its content explains why, apart from the power of the state, it merits obedience.

The purpose(s) toward which the law is oriented give the law its legitimacy, over
and above the fact that it is the law. . .The substance of the law refers to the
rationale that underlies the socially constructed relationships that are the order. . .It
is the formal character of the law’s rationalization that attaches legal
consequences—and therefore the coercion of the state—to. . .these relationships.
But the decision as to which of all possible social relationships to “legalize”
requires a guiding substantive rationale (such as the paramount importance of
freedom of contract, individual rights, social justice, or the like). Therefore, the
law’s legitimacy ultimately derives from its substance. Weber treats the continuing
quest for the law’s “spirit,” “kernel,” “real intent,” or ultimate “meaning” in terms
of the notion of the law’s “logical sublimation”. . .Logical sublimation, as Weber
uses the term, is essentially equivalent to the law’s substantive rationalization.

Both refer to the elaboration of the law’s ultimate objectives. It is clear that if the
law’s guarantee is to be effective—to reach those whom it is intended to reach—the
law needs to be formally rationalized. . .Correlatively, if the law is to be
legitimate—in line with the values of the body politic—elaboration of the reasons
behind the law (substantive rationalization) is necessary. In sum, formal and
substantive rationalization are complementary and parallel processes. Unless they
are synchronized so that they occur parallel to one another, their complementarity
will be lost (Friedman 1981: 54-55).

48

Weber argued that legal authority regimes are legitimized on rational grounds, which in
turn, rest upon a congruence between political principles and practices. Friedman
explains that the legitimacy of a law is not secured by its formal rationalization (political
practice), but first and foremost by its meaning (political principle). Codification and
enforcement contribute to the legitimacy of a law, but paramount are the values upon
which a principle rests. Values produce a normative yardstick by which to evaluate
propositions and other forms of action. Contemporary debates over immigration reform
are not “refereed” by a clear list of values, but are deliberated against a hazy backdrop of

probationary ethics.

Fluctuations in Nativism: A Weberian Analysis
The specific values (ideas about what is right or wrong) and beliefs (the application of
these values to particular situations) applied to immigration reform are difficult to
enumerate. As one might suspect, existing immigration and immigrant policies are based
on a number of values, but as emphasized earlier, laws incongruent with their intended
meanings risk delegitimation if their contents are not brought into line with the values of
the political community. The legitimacy of laws and regimes varies with their
substantive rationales, but on what value premises are these rationales based? It is
argued that US. immigration and immigrant policies secure their legitimacy by placing
the sovereignty and interests of the nation-state, and its members, above the interests of
the international community.

US. immigration and immigrant policies represent complex choices made among
competing values. The legitimacy of these laws inheres in the principle of national

sovereignty—the moral obligation of states to promote and protect the interests of its

49

members (Weiner 1997).3 Although recognized by national and international laws, this
belief is challenged by postnational realities. Some researchers suggest that the
reconfiguration of citizenship, emergence of diasporic public spheres, electronic
capitalism, and permanent framework of refugee bureaucracies and refugee-relief
movements—and other transnational processes—call into question notions of national
sovereignty and citizenship. These phenomena provoke new definitions of membership
and rights which are based on ideas of universal personhood and human rights, rather
than national sovereignty (Appadurai 1996; Soysal 1994).

While these realities may signal the emergence of “postnational sovereignties”
(Appadurai 1996: 176), these reflections are contemplated in a world comprised of
sovereign states, where the concept of national sovereignty is regarded by most citizens
as commonsensical (Weiner 1997; Hollinger 1995: 143-46). “While current international
law imposes important limitations on the exercise of the sovereign power to control entry,
overall there is little disagreement as to the state’s authority in this matter” (Sassen 1996:
66). National sovereignty is an organizing principle of immigration and immigrant
policies.

The Helsinki Accords and United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
affirm the universal right of emigration, “yet all governments and international
organizations agree that governments have the right to determine those to admit and to
whom citizenship should be granted” (Weiner 1995: 171-75; 1997: 171). The primary
objectives of US. immigration policies are to facilitate the social and economic

betterment of US. citizens and legal residents, encourage diversity, promote human

 

3 The interests of the nation-state are not objectively settled , but subject to change and power relations (see
discussion below).

50

rights and control illegal immigration (Fix and Passel 1994: 13). By formulating
immigration, refugee and asylum policies, the federal government seeks to strike a
balance between, among other things, the principles of national sovereignty and human
rights.

However, the scale used to balance international human rights against the right of
national sovereignty is decidedly weighed in favor of the latter. Even though the Refugee
Act of 1980 sought to align U.S. policies with international practices, the status of
refugee nevertheless reflects the decision of a government, not an individual (Portes and
Rumbaut 1996: 23). Refugee admissions are not considered moral imperatives, but
humanitarian acts in an ungenerous world. The principle of national sovereignty
legitimizes the authority of nation-states to promote and protect the rights of natives over
and above the interests of aliens.

The national self-interest, however, is rarely unambiguous. Immigration policies
symbolize, to various degrees, the tradeoffs made between competing visions of national
self-interest (see Chapters 5-7). The people and organizations promoting these visions
often contend that the national interest is best served by their national visions, implicitly
recognizing that legitimate arguments for reforming immigration are congruent with the
principle of national sovereignty (Light 1996; Calhoun 1994). Even open borders
positions can be explained in terms of the national interest (e.g., see Isbister 1996: 12).
Ideas of national sovereignty and national interest are embodied in national and
international laws and, at this point in time, serve as the definitive arbiters of what is, and
what is not, legitimate with respect to immigration reform. These laws and declarations

will be revised in accordance with new interpretations and emerging realities. Nativism

51

is, and will always be, historically variable so long as the values upon which it rests are

probationary, that is, so long as the principle of national sovereignty is reinterpreted in

light of transnational processes and regimes.

The National Narrative

The histories of nation-states are presented in narrative form. The events leading to their
formation and eventual standing in the world are explained as the fulfillment of a
collective project (Appadurai 1996; Anderson 1991; Balibar 1991; Wallerstein 1991). In
the United States, immigration constitutes a major theme in the national narrative. From
the colonial period to the present, America has imagined itself as a land of immigrants
(fig. , Fuchs 1990; Ueda 1981). Immigration reform is frequently understood in relation to
this collective representation even though legitimacy ultimately inheres in the principle of
national sovereignty. Even though legitimacy does not “reside” in the national narrative,
it can be regarded as a social fact having the force of social morality (Appadurai 1996: 5;
Durkheim 1982: 52). This point will be illustrated by comparing the national narrative to
RObert Merton’s analysis of the American creed.
In his classic essay, “Discrimination and the American Creed” (1949), Robert
Merton argues there is an American creed which asserts “the indefeasible principle of
hur‘lan right to full equity—the right of equitable access to justice, freedom and
0pI>0rtunity, irrespective of race or religion, or ethnic origin” (1949: 100). Americans are
e)‘KIDCcted to comply with this set of values and principles which are embedded in
American culture, and though it is practically immune to direct attack in particular times
alt1d places, it can be reinterpreted or evaded by individuals and institutions. The gap

between creed and conduct, however, is more than a discrepancy between esteemed

52

principles and inappropriate conduct, but is a relation between three variables: (1) The
cultural creed recognized in cultural traditions and lavvrnaking, (2) The beliefs and
attitudes of individuals pertaining to the creed’s principles, and (3) The actual behavior of
individuals with respect to the creed.
Merton used this formulation to demonstrate that conforming to, and deviating
from, the American creed is not a simple function of one’s beliefs and attitudes (1949:
102). Adapting his thesis to the idiosyncrasies of nativist discourses uncovers the social
expectations surrounding immigration reform (intentional actions designed to produce or
Prevent change in current immigration realities) by analyzing the varying degrees of
acceptance accorded to restrictionist and expansionist arguments.
The national narrative is similar to Merton’s American creed in matters of
imrni gration reform. The national narrative resembles the creed to the extent that it, too,
is a:
set of values and precepts embedded in American culture, to which Americans are

eX12>ectcd to conform. It is a complex of affirmations, rooted in the historical past

md ceremonially celebrated in the present, partly enacted in the laws of the land
and partly not. Like all creeds, it is a profession of faith, a part of cultural tradition

Sallctified by the larger traditions of which it is a part. It is. . .dynamic, subject to
Change. . . [and does not] exert the same measure of control over behavior in diverse

times and places (Merton 1949: 100-01).
Unlike the creed, however, the national narrative is not a legitimation source, but a myth.4
It is a Story of how immigrants, through self-reliance and an unwavering commitment to

republ ican principles, established a nation where liberty was granted and hard work

rewarded.

—-——\
4
A 33% is a traditional story of purportedly historical experiences that serves to explain why people see
the 0.1-1d from a certain vantage point or act in particular ways. A myth can be an unfounded story, but I
am “mg the word in the sense thought to have been fu'st used in English.

53

Like most founding myths, the national narrative chronicles past events and
cultivates a national identity congruent with the more laudable aspects of American
history (e.g., see Fuchs 1990; Knobel 1996). While some events are ignored, fallacious,
or idealized, many of the accounts are accurate and serve to explain, in part, why efforts
to curb immigration levels or abridge the “rights” of foreign-born residents are described

as nativistic. In the United States, immigration almost seems integral to the nation-
building process. These initiatives are, at times, at odds with this “nation of immigrants”
imagery.

Of course, the national narrative is not intrinsic to any kind of history, but is a
matrix of interpretations and inferences derived from the historical record.5 But whether
or not this image is “deserved” or historically “correct” is largely irrelevant from a
sociological point of view. As W.I. Thomas explained, if people “define situations as
r cal, they are real in their consequences” (1928: 572). It is not the accuracy of the
national narrative, but the perception of it, that influences an individual’s evaluation of
initiatives designed to maintain or change current immigration realities. Restrictionists
are keenly aware of this interpretation, often challenging the argument that the United
States is, or should be, a nation of immigrants (e.g., see Auster 1997: 42-45; Beck 1994:
113— 1 3 4).

The implicit assumption of the national narrative is that immigrants augment the

economic and political interests of the United States. Religious, cultural and racial

intere Sts have also been advanced throughout American history, but these considerations

 

N
s -
DcSp ‘te their relatively similar histories of immigration, the United States and France have, for example,
90m? to see, and act upon, their histories in dissimilar ways. Whereas the US. is “overtly a country of
mm‘grants, France is only covertly and partially such a country. The French do not regard themselves, in
the Way that Americans do, as the descendants of immigrants” (Horowitz 1992: l 1).

54

are rarely accorded the same level of legitimacy as that bestowed on economic and

political interests.6 Additionally, the boundaries of the national narrative extend beyond
the foreign-born and apply more generally to those perceived as “alien” in some sense.
Native-born Americans have been perceived, and treated as, aliens throughout American
history- The internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War is a
migrant example.

Restrictionists wrestle with the implications of the national narrative in their
writings, fully aware that unwanted labels (“nativist,” “racist,” etc.) are headed their way
for suggesting that America’s relatively liberal immigration policies be reversed
(Brimelow 1996: 9-13; Beck 1992; 1996: 12). Arguments about the “costs” of
immigration are generally considered legitimate because the material interests of natives

suPeI‘Sede those of aliens. America’s “basic openness to outsiders who wish to become
Incinit><=rs of the national society. . .presumes that American openness to immigrants serves
American material interests” (Bosniak 1996: 289). It is assumed, when considering the
implications of the national narrative (i.e., relative openness to immigration) that the

material interests of natives supersede those of aliens. To use Blumer’s (1 95 8)

ternlitlcnlogy, it is a proprietary right of natives.

If arguments about nativism are indeed arguments about legitimacy, then what
krnds 0f reasoning and conduct are legitimate? Merton assumes that discrimination is

always illegitimate, but in the case of immigration reform, some forms of

 

\
6 .
(53:51: Stance, racial interests were openly discussed in the debate surrounding the 1924 Immigration Act
terms ( ,estabhshed the national origins quota system), but were, by and large, articulated in “scientific”
to the ‘ reg eugenics) (e.g., sec Ludrnerer 1972; Morgan 1987), thereby providing a modicum of legitimacy
,ustify?“0posed reductions. Secondly, the House Committee on Immigration understood the imprudence of
3 . “fig their bill on the grounds of Nordic superiority and, as a result, devised a way to discriminate
33320) st u“migrants from southeastern Europe without appearing overtly racist (e.g., see Higham 1992: 319-

55

“discrimination” are legitimate if they “balance” the needs of natives and aliens in favor
of the former. For example, few would repudiate the deportation of aliens convicted of
terrorism. Unlike the American creed, the principle of national sovereignty does not

assert that all humans are entitled to full equity, but presupposes the priority of “natives”

over “aliens.”

Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses to Legitimate Principles

Political struggles over immigration reform cannot be understood only in terms of
legitil’rlacy and a founding myth. The legitimacy of a given social order or practice, and
the nol‘rnative import of the national narrative, are useful for analyzing the content and
contentiousness of the discourse, but are less useful for examining the structural basis of
nativi sm and the variety of individual motives and actions predicated on the distinction.
betVVeen natives and aliens. Legitimacy is a core structuring element in numerous social

and political hierarchies, but its presence is not indicative of a common will (Albrow

1990 : 1 58-196; Weber 1968: 22-26).

The acceptance and use of an argument does not solely depend upon its perceived
legitill'lacy (e.g., see Blau 1963). Individuals may accept a line of reasoning simply out
of sel f— interest, and thus, only recognize it to the extent that it is in their best interest to do
50- Otllers may comply out of mere habit. Adapting Merton’s typology of prejudice and
discri I'Ilination to the idiosyncrasies of immigration reform underscores this point.

Merton’s typology of prejudice and discrimination can be modified to help

account for some of the discrepancies we find between an individual’s beliefs and their
actual actions. Even though I have changed Merton’s terms, I borrow heavily from his

descliIDtions of the “all weather liberal,” “fair-weather liberal,” “all-weather illiberal,”

56

and “fair-weather illiberal” to construct a typology more suited to the complexities of

immigration reform. On the attitudinal dimension, deny refers to those beliefs which

dispute the principles of national sovereignty and accept refers to those beliefs in it. On

the behavioral dimension, expansion refers to efforts to maintain or increase immigration

levels and restriction refers to those efforts intended to lower immigration levels.

 

Attitude Dimension: Behavior Dimension:
accept (+) and Expansion (+) and
__ deny (-) restriction (-)
All-weather immigration advocate — +
Fair-Weather immigration advocate + — / +
+

Timid nativist
A“'W'tr-zzlther xenophobe and nativist

 

Figure 2 Adaptation of Merton’s Typology

The conduct of all-weather immigration advocates seems to coincide with the

import of the national narrative, but their underlying rationales contradict the principle of

national sovereignty. As noted earlier, the implicit assumption of the national interest is

that immigrants advance US. interests, but not at the expense of natives, whose interests

supersede those of immigrants. But all-weather immigration advocates do not defer to

the ilitrerests of natives. Their desire to enlarge the “circle of we” (Hollinger 1995) is not

diaated by the “weather,” but by a belief that people have the right to emigrate and

1mm igrate, or that open borders is in the national interest. This conflicts with the United

Nations ’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Helsinki Accord, which affirm a

universal right of emig1ation, but not of immigration (Weiner 1996: 171; Lutton and

Tanton 1994: 148).

The reasoning of all-weather advocates conflicts with the notion that native

intereSts are paramount in establishing and adjusting immigration policy.

57

1 ULUSIILil.
Riflw

lie

For anyone who publicly argues that American interests should not be the only
relevant interests at stake in formulating national immigration policy—anyone who
dares to contend that America’s normative obligations extend beyond the national
community’s formal members and that the interests of immigrants or would-be
immigrants should also be taken into account—will not merely be dismissed as a
soft—headed utopian but will inevitably be charged with “supporting open
borders”—a charge whose pejorative weight begins to rival that of “nativism”
itself. . .Far from being illegitimate, in fact, the assumed priority of citizens over
foreigners, of nationals over strangers, lies at the absolute core of contemporary
political thought (Bosniak 1997: 290).
Weighing the interests of natives and non-natives in equal measure, or ignoring the
interests of natives altogether, conflicts with the “national priority thesis” (Bosniak 1997:
239), but does the charge of “supporting open borders” really rival that of “nativism”?
The insinuation of favoring “open borders,” compared to the accusation of
“nativism,” seems, relatively speaking, inoffensive. Brimelow characterized high
immigration advocates in Alien Nation as “immigration enthusiasts.” But perhaps
rhaliZitrg his characterization did not censure high immigration advocates in the same
way mat “nativism” admonishes low immigration advocates, he sarcastically suggested
that the “moral equivalent” of nativism is “treason,” and should be used instead (1997).
Bl“ Why the uneven evaluation? All-weather advocates may be accused of promoting
Open borders,” but their behavior seems consistent with the national narrative because
the Process of immigration is thought to be consistent with the national narrative. Since
the ‘30 ntinuation of immigration is, in some form, almost a foregone conclusion, the
behavior of all-weather advocates appears legitimate. Secondly, open border adherents
can e"illness their rationales in terms of the national interest by arguing that immigrants
enrich America, materially and culturally.

Fair-weather immigration advocates are willing to widen the “circle of we”

(Honinger 1995), but unlike all-weather immigration advocates, only when the weather

58

permits. For example, if immigrants seriously threaten the employment opportunities of
natives, the circumference of “we” stays put. While they may wish things were different,
it is the proprietary claims of natives that must come first. Requests by American math
scientists to curb the immigration of foreign mathematicians for the benefit of native-born
mathematicians is an example of fair-weather advocacy (e.g., see Philips 1996).

The majority of expansionists and restrictionists fall into the fair-weather
category, but their disparate responses to aliens originate—not in separate rationales—but
in different worldviews. As will be illustrated in Chapters 5-7, restrictionists regard the
f0136888 of expansionists as dangerously optimistic, whereas expansionists view the
for ecEitsts of restrictionists as selfishly pessimistic. However, notwithstanding their

differem decisions, each side generally believes that their recommendations, given their
my ses and projections, are the most appropriate.

The explanations of fair-weather immigration advocates are consistent with the
national narrative so long as their underlying reasons are considered legitimate—that is,
their calls for restriction are grounded in cost arguments and not racial or national
iderltity-based arguments. Because they do not oppose immigration in and of itself, but
only in certain circumstances—circumstances viewed as legitimate grounds for
resn—i Cting immigration—their behavior is not nativistic. Expansionists may dispute the
acc‘lt‘acy of cost arguments but they rarely question their legitimacy (Bosniak 1997).

The principle of national sovereignty has little bearing on the reasoning of timid
nativists. They do not accept the implications of the principle, but promote expansion for
fear- tthat doing otherwise will entail some kind of cost. Unlike fair-weather immigration

advocates who propose reductions when immigration policies are allegedly at odds with

59

the welfare of natives, timid nativists only support the principle of national sovereignty
when it is in their best interest to comply. The behavior of timid nativists is, of course,
also condifional——they will cease to abide by the principle of national sovereignty when
certain sanctions are removed. One can imagine a personnel director who does not
believe in the principle of national sovereignty, yet favors expansionist policies——
regardless of their impact on natives—because her corporation’s competitiveness is
thought to hinge on their enactment.

All-weather xenophobes and nativists are the unabashed discriminators, because
discrimination does not represent a gap between their rationales and behavior (Merton
1949 1 109). Xenophobes do not accept the implications of the national narrative, and no

matter what the weather, their response to aliens is the same—the “circle of we” is full.
The true xenophobe, the one who fears and/or dislikes all foreigners, belongs here.

Nativists, on the other hand, may not have an irrational fear of immigrants, but
favor restriction for illegitimate reasons. Many of Peter Brimelow’s (1996) arguments
are fair-weather driven, but much of his reasoning is decidedly illegitimate, and therefore,
hativi stic. According to Brimelow, legal immigration should be drastically reduced, but
some immigrants should be let in, so long as they are highly skilled and “assimilable”
(eg- , see pp. 257-74).

His concern with assimilation, however, is betrayed by a number of racial
argul'«l‘lents and references. For instance, Brimelow asserts that race and ethnicity are
“destiny in American politics,” refers to the “demographic mutation” America is

innit“ling upon itself (p. xxi), or even more pointedly: “Just as when you leave Park

Averille and descended into the subway, when you enter the INS waiting rooms you find

60

yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but is almost entirely colored”(l 996:
28). His racial logic was not only criticized by expansionists, but by restrictionists as
well. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (a
restrictionist organization), sharply criticized Brimelow for equating race and nationality

and even questioned the sincerity of his apparent concern for black Americans (1995).

The Social Organization of Nativism

Regarding nativism strictly as an ideological phenomenon overlooks its structural
foundation, that is, the social relations and practices influencing the life chances of those
categorized as natives and aliens. These processes are subject to redefinition and
intervention, but once social relations between natives and aliens are institutionalized,
individual volition is circumscribed. Specifically, social relations between natives and
aliens are largely organized by, and through, the institutions of citizenship and
immigration policy. These national practices, however, are considered legitimate, unlike
the institutions thought to perpetuate racial and ethnic stratification. The concepts of
identifiability and group position can untie the knot of ideas and practices embodying
nativist activities. It is the identification of aliens by natives which makes the entire
process possible, but it is the diagnosis of threat, grounded in a sense of group position,
which precipitates the process.

Identifiability Legal boundaries (citizen, immigrant, alien, border, etc.) and
social boundaries (race, ethnicity, etc.) reflect relations of culture and power. They are
not fixed, primordial distinctions, but culturally constructed boundaries that, despite their
changing qualities, “are given meaning and sentiment by those who reside in them”

(Basch, Glick Schiller, and Szanton Blanc 1995: 32-33). Conceived as “natural”

61

distinctions, the meanings assigned to these social constructions influence people’s
attitudes and behaviors and can be reformulated and/or politicized for various purposes,
economic or otherwise (Basch et al. 1995: 33). Because meaning does not inhere in the
constructions themselves, but is, in part, developed by the people who reside within them,
being a “native” begins with the perception that one is a native, not necessarily with one’s
place of birth or legal status. Although one’s birthplace and citizenship influence one’s
national identity, relative power, and perceptions of others, to think and respond like a
“native” is not a simple function of nativity or legal status.

A subpopulation’s degree of identifiability is influenced by their phenotypic and
cultural distinctiveness (Aguirre and Turner 1995: 31). The religious beliefs and
practices of Catholics, political persuasions of “radical” immigrants, and “swarthy”
complexions of southern and eastern Europeans were all used, at various times
throughout American history, to identify each group as “alien.” The selection of these
symbols, at the exclusion of others, can in some measure be attributed to the “style” in
which the US. has “imagined” itself (Anderson 1991).

Race and gender have figured prominently in US. immigration and naturalization
laws (cf. Glenn and Parrei’ias 1996; Pedraza 1991; Ueda 1981) and continue to influence
notions of who an American is, or at least should be (e.g., see Brimelow 1996). Because
notions of “race” and “Americanness” are intertwined (cf. Almaguer 1994; Frankenberg
1993: 195-202) and our general understanding of what constitutes racism has become less
clear since the 19603 (Sénchez 1997), it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish
nativism from racism in a time when most immigrants are non-white. Secondly,

Hondagneu-Sotelo (1995) argues that many of the proposed restrictions are aimed at

62

women and children (e.g., Proposition 187 and the new welfare laws passed 1996). If
nativism is to retain its utility in the social sciences, and avoid the kind of confusion that
currently surrounds the concepts of racism and sexism, its meaning needs to be made
more clear.

But a group’s visibility, in and of itself, is not the cause of nativist activity.
Seeing oneself and others as “natives” and others as “aliens” effectively places the groups
in relation to each other, providing them with what Blumer (195 8) calls a sense of group
position. It is this sense of group position, emerging from the definitional process, that is
fundamental to understanding the perceptions of natives.

Native as a Sense of Group Position In his well-known essay, “Race Prejudice
as a Sense of Group Position,” Blumer theorizes that hostility between dominant and
subordinate racial groups is initiated and sustained by a collective process of racial
identification where racial groups form images of themselves and others. By
characterizing each other, the groups define their positions vis-a-vis one another, and in
so doing, contribute to what he calls a “sense of group position” (Blumer 1958: 3-4).
This sense of group position provides the dominant group with “its framework of
perception, its standard of judgment, its patterns of sensitivity, and its emotional
proclivities” (1958: 4). It is from this sense of social position where feelings of
competition and hostility emerge (Bobo and Hutchings 1996).

The notion as to where a group belongs—socially, economically, and so on—is
linked, in part, to a definitional process. Leaders, spokespersons, intellectuals, and
interest groups contribute to a group’s image of itself and other “subordinate” groups.

These individuals and organizations characterize and interpret significant events for their

63

various audiences and constituencies, thereby contributing to the multiple—and often
contradictory—perceptions of where one’s group should stand in relation to various
issues, or even more fundamentally, to other groups. When a dominant group forms a
collective image of a subordinate group, they create an “abstract image” of that group.
This image fosters the impression that the subordinate group is a “vast entity,” and
encourages members of the dominant group to eschew their various experiences or
interactions with outsiders and rely instead on “their” leaders and spokespersons to
interpret events and interactions for them (Blumer 1958: 5-6).

For dominant groups, such as “natives,” the sense of group position consists of
four perceptions: (1) a feeling of superiority, or ethnocentrism, (2) the perspective that
out-group members are fundamentally “alien” or “different,” (3) the view that one’s
group is entitled to privileged (or prior) rights, resources, and statuses—er to use
Blumer’s phrase, “a feeling of proprietary claim to certain areas of privilege and
advantage” (1958: 4), and (4) a fear that out-group members are threatening, or will
threaten, “their” rights and resources. Prompted and justified by feelings of superiority
and entitlement, the dominant group assumes that certain resources belong solely, or at
the very least, primarily, to them. When the dominant group senses a challenge to these
exclusive claims, a hostile response is likely (Bobo and Hutchings 1996: 955; Blumer
1958:4; Quillian 1995: 588).

‘ Explaining why certain people in the United States come to define others as
“aliens” and develop exclusionary practices to limit their entrance into the nation-state—
or participation in certain areas of “native privilege”—can be developed by modifying

Blumer’s notion that racial prejudice stems fi'om a defense of group position. The

64

importance of his work to nativism lies in its emphasis on group position and the multiple
ways this position can be challenged. But how do we account for this sense of group
position among natives, and secondly, for the fact that not every native responds to aliens
in the same way? With some qualifications, I offer Conner’s argument that the
proprietary claims of natives are rooted in notions of ownership and entitlement:

Nativism has appeared at both low and high points in the business cycle, at times of

labor shortage and surplus. In some cases, recent large-scale immigration appears

to have been a factor giving rise to nativism. But in other cases, a diaspora which

had been resident for generations was suddenly targeted as unwanted aliens. . .The

complexity of the pattern therefore frustrates attempts to anticipate outbreaks of

nativism. But this lack of pattern in itself tells us such considerations as the

business cycle, the rate of immigration, cultural distance, historic animosities and

the like are at most potential/ likely triggers or exacerbators but are not the root

force. Their relationship to nativism may be caustic, but it is not causal.

Explanation ultimately lies in the primal title to a homeland claimed by the

indigenous ethno-racial group. Though it may never be exercised, the power of

eviction that is inherent in such a title to the territory may be translated into action

at any time. Members of a diaspora can therefore never be at home in a homeland.

They are at best sojoumers, remaining at the sufferance of the indigenous people

(1986: 19-20, italics added).
The basic core of nativism begins to unfold if the word “indigenous” is replaced with
“native.” Histories of colonialism and migration clearly demonstrate that one need not be
indigenous to make proprietary claims. Rather, colonizers and immigrants can come to
define themselves as “natives,” and on that basis, arrogate certain rights unto
themselves?

For example, in 1790 the first federal naturalization law stipulated that only a

“free white person” was eligible for naturalization. Through a gradual accumulation of

judicial decisions, the courts concluded that American Indians were noncitizens because

“although they were born in the US. territory, their allegiance remained to the tribe.”

65

(Ueda 1981: 737). In 1868, citizenship was guaranteed to all persons born in the United
States, “excluding Indians not taxed,” and in 1870, Congress amended the naturalization
law of 1790 by allowing “aliens of Afi'ican nativity” and “persons of African descent” to
naturalize. Native Americans were not granted US. citizenship on the basis of jus soli
(where citizenship is acquired by birth in the US. or one of its possessions) until 1924
(Ueda 1981: 738-43). The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act introduced the infamous
category “aliens ineligible for citizenship” to prohibit all foreign-born Chinese from
naturalizing (Lee 1989: 376; INS Statistical Yearbook 1994). This category was applied
to other “Asian” groups as well, and though exceptions were made in the following years,
the category was not officially abolished until the enactment of the McCarran-Walter Act
in 1952 (Ueda 1981: 746).

While certainly racial, these judicial and executive decisions were attempts to
exclude aliens from the institution of citizenship. Racial politics shaped, and continue to
shape, the status of white people (Winant 1997). In many ways, whiteness and national
identity became synonymous. Racial considerations frequently determine who the
“aliens” and “natives” are, but not always. During World War I, German-Americans
were seen viewed as aliens—not because of their ethnicity—but because their national
organization assumed a pro-Germany posture (Higham 1992). Throughout American
history, whites (primarily men in power) have clearly viewed an inclusive definition of
citizenship as a threat to their material and symbolic interests (e. g., see Almaguer 1994).

A population’s status as “natives” entitles them to certain claims, one of which is

the “right” to exclude, for various reasons, those they define as “alien.” But anyone can

7 This often requires a kind of historical amnesia. “Omission and historical error are central to creating a
nation; the advancement of historical knowledge is often a threat to nationhood” (Ernest Renan, 1882, cited

66

have claims. Without the power to enforce them, or more specifically, without the
consent or support of the group in power, efforts to exclude or mistreat aliens will be
difficult to implement. This definitional process does not, however, in and of itself
explain nativist behavior. Natives can feel threatened by those they define as alien and
have the power to discriminate against them, and still refrain from nativist behavior.
There is a need to understand the conditions under which heightened nativist activity
occurs and who promotes it. These issues will be addressed in Chapters 4-7, but for right
now it is important to recognize that a sense of group position—native or otherwise—
only provides its members with a general orientation, not with a script for behavior and
beliefs (Blumer 1958: 5-6). A full understanding of nativism requires that a sense of

group position be situated within the contexts of threat, perceived legitimacy and legality.

Defining Nativism

The concept of nativism simultaneously describes and stigmatizes certain beliefs and
behaviors. And because these attitudes and actions are portrayed as illegitimate, the
process and perception of nativism are fundamentally connected. The normative
assumptions underpinning the concept, however, should not dissuade researchers from
analyzing the phenomenon as a social and legal process. The preceding discussion
examined the process and perception of nativism separately for ease of analysis, but the
two components can, and will be, combined into one definition.

When a subpopulation is considered alien by those who consider themselves to be
natives, and can be identified as such, nativism becomes possible. This is a necessary,

but not sufficient, condition. It is the visibility of difference that allows natives to police

in Noiriel 1996: l).

67

systems of domination. Of course, “native” and “alien” are largely matters of perception,
but like matters of “race,” the categories preferred by the dominant group are usually
decisive, regardless of their precision (e.g., see Wright 1994; Omi and Winant 1994: 55).
Because they are socially and politically constructed, the images of “aliens” and
“natives” will vary. A nativist can be a native-born American, a naturalized citizen, or
even a recent immigrant, just as a recently arrived immigrant or third-generation
American can appear “alien.” The conceptions natives have of themselves and others—
products of history and everyday life—contribute to their sense of group position and
provide them with frameworks of perception and patterns of sensitivity “native” in
orientation.

But as already noted, nativism is not precipitated by identifiability. A sense of
threat, perceived or actual, must also be sensed if discrimination is to occur (Aguirre and
Turner 1995: 34; Blumer 1958). Like “race prejudice,” the source of nativism “lies in a
felt challenge to this sense of group position” (Blumer 1958: 5). Aliens can challenge a
group’s position by threatening their racial dominance, cultural symbols (e. g., language
and customs), encroaching on their privileged resources (e. g., certain jobs and public
benefits), and threatening their sense of individual or national security (Blumer 1958;
Zimmermann 1995; Aguirre and Turner 1995: 34). In many respects, these threats
represent threats to privilege (e.g., racial, economic, and environmental privileges).
These are only a few examples of how the behavior or sheer presence of aliens can
threaten a populations’ sense of group position.

However, as a system of exclusion and privilege, nativism requires more than a

fear that one’s proprietary claims are threatened. Unless a population has the power to

68

enforce its claims, nativist attitudes will be present, but not the actual behavior of native-
ism. Nativism implies the ability to exclude or discriminate against those who, for
whatever reason, are deemed to be “non-natives”—aliens, in other words.8 National
citizenship and immigration policy are the primary institutions through which natives
enforce their power over aliens. Without the power to define and enforce one’s view of
who is to be included or excluded from such proprietary entitlements, nativism will not
emerge as a form of stratification. Noel (1968) argues that the emergence of ethnic
stratification usually requires ethnocentrism, competition, and differential power.
Similarly, the process of nativism requires a definitional process, a perception of threat,
and differential power. Without a definitional process, aliens and natives would quickly
merge and distinctions would not be structured along native lines. Without a sense of
threat there would be little reason to limit immigration or abridge the rights of resident
aliens. Without differential power it would be difficult for one group to impose its will
upon another (Noel 1968: 163; also see Aguirre and Tuner 1995).

Placing this process within a politically contested context (e.g., to define what is
legitimate and what is not), I define nativism as a native defense of proprietary claims
over and against the encroachment of aliens. The terms “native” and “alien” are not
immutable categories or natural, but ones of perception and identifiability. Aliens can be
an internal and/or external population. Newly arrived immigrants as well as third-
generation residents can be perceived as “alien” and “threaten” the proprietary claims of
natives.

Attempts to exclude or discriminate against aliens, even if they are.

“unsuccessful,” qualify as “defense.” Even if a group has the power to initiate

¥

’ I am referring to power in the Weberian sense of the word.

69

discrimination, resistance to it (from aliens or other natives) can limit its effectiveness. It
is the attempt to use power that reveals one’s intentions. When aliens encroach upon the
proprietary claims of natives, the responses of a native population will vary according to
their relative power, the perceived legitimacy of the proposed actions, and the overall
social and legal contexts.

Because of its implicit evaluation, Bosniak contends that the meaning of nativism
“is in important respects indeterminate” (1996: 282-83). The preceding exercise argues
that nativism can and should be defined. Nativism is rooted in the notion that a
population’s status as “natives” entitles them to exclude or restrict “aliens” from certain
spheres of importance or privilege. When this idea is put into action it becomes a
process, and when the claims being protected are considered illegitimate by the general
population, the process is considered nativistic. This will almost always occur within
contexts perceived as threatening. The principle of national sovereignty is “well
established by treaty law and constitutionally” (Sassen 1996: 65) and in many respects
the current arbiter of appropriate and inappropriate conduct with respect to immigration
reform. The national narrative describes the congruency between immigration and the
national interest and also serves, although with less authority, as a gauge of what is right
and wrong with respect to immigration reform. Because the principle of national
sovereignty is the standard by which the attitudes and actions of American are gauged
with respect to migration-related issues, the attendant evaluation is not something to be
remedied, but something to be examined sociologically.

The concept of nativism sheds light on the dynamics of immigrant reception and

incorporation (Portes and Rumbaut 1996). Its usefulness, however, can be improved. If

70

nativism is to become a sharp analytical tool by which the reactions of “natives” to
“aliens” are analyzed, further work—theoretical and empirical—is needed. To this end,
the historical review in Chapter 3 illuminates the conditions under which heightened

nativist activity typically occurs.

71

CHAPTER 3

AMERICAN NATIVISM IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Analyzing the constitutive properties of nativism, those elements common to nativistic
events, is the central purpose of this chapter. Although these properties are specified in
the definition of nativism provided in previous chapter, this review is designed to
illustrate their interrelations. Special attention is given to the conditions under which
nativism typically occurs. This research does not systematically analyze every nativist
event in US. history, but places some of the more infamous incidents into one of three
nativist eras. The contextual character of nativism is highlighted in each era, as well as
the underlying interests and concerns typically sighted in heightened periods of nativist

activity.

A Review of American Nativism

Because nativism is regularly associated with a number of beliefs and behaviors (cf.
Bosniak 1997), there is no single study to consult when deciding if a certain event
belongs in a survey of American nativism. This situation has been remedied, in some
measure, by defining nativism as “a native defense of proprietary claims over and against
the encroachment of aliens.” Applying this definition to the historical record, however, is
fairly complex. The propriety claims of the American populace have changed throughout
American history, as well as the definitions of “aliens” and legitimacy. Last year’s alien
can be this year’s native, and yesterday’s nativism can be today’s immigration reform. In
short, definitions of aliens and legitimacy vary historically. This quandary is

compounded by the fact that secondary materials, which are utilized in this review, are an

72

inseparable blend of documentation and interpretation. These limitations are partly
mitigated by relying on multiple sources to examine the same events and attendant
conditions.

At the most general level, nativism is impelled by a perception of threat. The
following analysis of nativist episodes, from the colonial era to the present, underscores
how this perception has intersected with various contexts and ideas throughout American
history. The following review does not examine every nativist incident in American
history, nor does the inclusion of an event necessarily signify nativism. Some of the
more prominent examples of nativism are juxtaposed with a diverse set of sociohistorical
settings at the end of this chapter. In many ways, this review demonstrates how some
natives have, in the words of Benedict Anderson, “imagined” their national community.
Such communities “are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the
style in which they are imagined” (1991: 6). This “style” is the subject of the following

review.

The Ebb and Flow of Religious Nativism: 1600-1859

Anti-Catholicism was the most prevalent form of nativism in the colonial period.
Distilled from “No-Popery” laws and a series of real and imagined Catholic conspiracies
in seventeenth century England, English settlers tried to limit the immigration and rights
of Catholics (Bennett 1995: 17-18; Billington 1963: 1-31; Curran 1975: 12-13).
Religious intolerance varied from one colony to the next, but Catholics were routinely
barred from entering certain colonies, holding public office, and voting (Fuchs 1990: 7-
12; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 11-19; Muller 1993: 18). Even though it is impossible to

chronicle and characterize every instance of anti-Catholicism, colonial nativists generally

73

viewed Roman Catholicism as an “authoritarian” religion endangering the political
stability of their settlements. To guard against this presumed danger, colonists strove to
minimize their numbers and participation in civic affairs.

Catholics were prohibited from naturalizing throughout much of the colonial era,
and until 1806, were unable to assume public office in most states, largely because of
objectionable oaths (Leonard and Parmet 1971: 19; Ueda 1981: 735). England’s
Glorious Revolution of 1689 (where Parliament overthrew the Catholic King, James II)
exacerbated anti-Catholic nativism in the colonies, precipitating rumors that Catholics
were conspiring with Indians to massacre the Protestants (Bennett 1995: 19; Leonard and
Parmet 1971: 12). In 1690, during the French and Spanish Wars, Catholics were viewed
as potential saboteurs, a fifth column.l “Every Catholic within the colonies was looked
upon as a potential enemy who might let his papal allegiance supersede his loyalty to the
crown by co-operating with the armies of French Canada and Spanish Florida against the
settlers” (Billington 1963: 9). As a result, Catholics were—in some of the colonies—
burdened with additional taxes, forbidden to settle in large groups, and disarmed (Bennett
1995: 20; Billington 1963: 9-16; Curran 1975: 16). Later, in 1755, Britain deported more
than six thousand Acadians G‘rench-speaking Catholic peasants from Nova Scotia) to the
southern colonies. Their reception was a hostile one, and some even became indentured
servants (Jones 1992: 26; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 13).

The conflation of Protestantism and republicanism in the colonial era contributed
to conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Puritans often saw themselves as a

“Chosen People” in a “New Israel,” where the virtues of liberty and commitment to the

74

public good were republican and Protestant, secular and sacred. This perspective tended
to cast secular events into sacred, pivotal phases in the “Holy Commonwealth,” elevating
republican virtues to the level of “sacred,” and who better to guard these virtues than
Protestants? (Hughey 1992: 538-541). Some Protestants viewed the Catholic church as a
menace to their God-given liberty, and Catholics as pawns of the Pope. For a number of
Protestants, it was the “secretive” and “conspiratorial” religion of Catholics which
precluded their equal participation in the civic culture (Bennett 1995: 18-20; Jones 1992:
127; Leonard and Parmet 1971).

But the dominance of a Protestant-republican ideology cannot account for every
nativist episode, even during the colonial era. If it could, nativism would have been an
almost permanent, rather than sporadic, feature of colonial America (Hughey 1992: 542).
Catholics were not entirely excluded from the civic culture, but tended to endure nativist
hostilities during wartime and periods of relatively high immigration. They were not the
only ones, however, to encounter opposition.

Jews, French Huguenots, Protestant Irish,2 and Germans also faced native
hostility. Like the Catholics, Jews were often barred from voting and holding office
(Curran 1975: 13). The Protestant French Huguenots seemed more French than
Protestant to the colonists, particularly during the Anglo-French wars in 1689. One of
their settlements in Rhode Island was attacked by a mob, some were “compelled” to

leave their homes in New York, and others were unjustly imprisoned in Pennsylvania

 

' The origin of the fifth column metaphor stems from the “column of supporters which General Mola
declared himself to have in Madrid, when he was besieging it in the Spanish Civil War, in addition to the
four columns of his army outside the city” (Oxford English Dictionary 1989: 890).

2 The Protestant Irish are sometimes erroneously referred to as “Scotch Irish.” Little “serious scholarship
exists about the Protestant lrish...and all statements about their ethnic identity and integration into America
need to be viewed somewhat critically” (Diner 1996: 171).

75

(Curran 1975: 15; Jones 1992: 37).3 German loyalty was questioned during the French
and Indian Wars. Their large numbers and “clannishness” were especially resented in
Pennsylvania. Benjamin Franklin worried that they might “Germanize” Pennsylvanians
rather than assimilate—a fear clearly shared by the Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New
Jersey legislatures (Curran 1975: 16; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 15, 115-116). In his
1751 Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind Franklin asked, “why should the
Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm our Settlements, and by herding together establish
their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours” (cited in Leonard and Parmet
1971: 15). Lastly, the poverty and “large” numbers of the Protestant Irish drew nativist
accusations and violence. In Boston, they were blamed for the increase in wheat prices,
and in 1734, had their new Presbyterian church in Worcester destroyed (Curran 1975:
15).

Support for the new government replaced religion as the litmus test for loyalty as
Catholics joined the revolutionary army and Catholic France became the colony’s ally
against the British (Bennett 1995: 20-21). Not until the mid-18305 would a strident anti-
Catholicism reemerge. In the interim, two short ruptures of nativism occurred in the
1790s—one against foreign ideas, the other against foreigners. In the late 17905, secret
societies of Illuminati (composed mainly of Freemasons and other anti-Catholics) were
accused of trying to abolish the republic’s political and religious institutions. Their zeal to
bring all people under the rules of reason, and secretive manner, allegedly violated——
among other things—property rights, organized religion, and the innocence of women

(Hofstadter 1996: 10-14). But by 1799 the thesis of an “Illuminism conspiracy” could

 

3 By the eve of the revolution, however, the Huguenot’s assimilation was so extensive that they were often
indistinguishable from the general colonial population, and in many cases had “Americanized” their

76

not endure public scrutiny and the movement fell into disrepute (Bennett 1995: 23-25).
The second rupture, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, was primarily
directed against the foreign-born and was propelled in part by the Federalist’s resentment
and distrust of the many foreigners who sided with the Jeffersonians (Bennett 1995: 22;
Leonard and Parmet 1971: 22-23; Muller 1993: 21). The first federal immigrant
(naturalization) and immigration policies were established in the 17903 (INS 1994).

Between 1815 and 1860 the rapid transformations surging through the young
republic had Americans asking questions and restrictionists giving answers. Over five
million immigrants arrived between 1820 and 1860, dwarfing the estimated 250,000 who
arrived between 1776 and 1820 (INS Yearbook 1991: 13, 47). Many of the newcomers
were Catholic—between 1841 and 1850 their numbers swelled from 663,000 to
1,606,000 (Leonard and Parmet 1971: 34). “Dramatic changes in population, territory,
transportation, industry, and urban growth transformed the United States from a small,
primarily agricultural and rural nation of about 10,000,000 in 1820 into an industrial-
urban giant of 31,000,000 in 1860” (Leonard and Parmet 1971: 34). While these changes
would set the stage for nativists in the early- to mid-18005, the threat of secession and
public’s impatience with established political parties proved to be even more decisive
(Holt 1973).

The destruction of churches and convents, Catholic scare literature, and violent
clashes between Protestants and Catholics were standard fare in the 18305. In New York,
St. Mary’s was set afire in 1831—the first in a series of church burnings and desecrations
that would continue up until the Civil War (Leonard and Parmet 1971: 57). The 1834

burning of the Ursuline Convent School in Charlestown, Massachusetts on August 10

 

surnames, such as Paul Revere, who came from the Huguenot family of Rivoire (Jones 1992: 43).

77

was perhaps the most notorious example of Protestant violence. Drawing from Samuel
F.B. Morse’s books warning of an international Catholic conspiracy, the Reverend
Beecher delivered three anti-Catholic speeches in Boston during the day and incited forty
to fifty Bostonians to cross the river and torch the school (Bennett 1995: 40-41; Leonard
and Parmet 1971: 57). Other anti-Catholic publications followed, often excusing these
acts of violence and encouraging new ones. The Awfid Disclosures of Maria Monk
(1836) falsely alleged that priests were raping young women and killing their offspring
afier baptizing them. The book sold 300,000 copies by the Civil War, and until surpassed
by Uncle Tom ’s Cabin, was the best-selling book in American history (Bennett 1995: 42-
43; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 58).

A controversy over the funding of New York parochial schools took place
between 1840 and 1842. Comparable debates later emerged in Philadelphia and
Cincinnati, contributing to the formation of local restrictionist organizations and sparking
riots in Brooklyn and Philadelphia (Leonard and Parmet 1971: 66—84). Restrictionist
organizations, particularly the American Republican party, tasted political success in
mayoral and congressional races in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts in 1844
(Bennett 1995: 53-59). But such victories were short-lived. Support for restrictionist
activities faded as riots between native-born Americans and Irish erupted in Philadelphia
and Brooklyn. Respectable middle class Protestants were apparently displeased with the
violence and a number of other Americans began, in 1846, to focus on the Mexican War."
The movement itself was also to blame, however, as political amateurs and opportunists

lacked the organizational skills needed to sustain the campaign (Leonard and Parmet

78

1971: 79-80). While the militia was able to curb the riots in Brooklyn, approximately a
hundred people were wounded and thirty were killed in Philadelphia (Bennett 1995: 56-
58; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 74-79; Purcell and Poole 1941: 29-30).

The restrictionist movement regained momentum by the early 18505. The
looming sectional crisis and general public’s dissatisfaction with the Whigs and
Democrats provided them with the opportunity to actualize their agendas (Bennett 1995:
106-134; Holt 1973). Historians have tended to place context (e.g., sectional discord,
high immigration) at the center of their reconstructed, “causal” analyses of nativist
activity in the 1850s. While recognizing that context is critical to understanding the
variety and intensity of nativism at a given locale and time, overemphasizing its
importance can obscure the different motivations people bring to a nativist organization
or event. Holt raises a related point in his research on the origins of “Know Nothingism,”
observing that the public’s displeasure with the government and political parties are
endemic in American history, and that there are hazards in using such constant
phenomena to interpret discrete events (1973: 312-313). As much as these conditions
contributed to the appeal of nativism, other factors must also be considered, such as the
nativist organizations themselves.

The nativist societies born in the 18405, such as the Order of United Americans
(OUA) and Order of United American Mechanics (OUAM), carried the nativist “seed”
into the fifties, facilitating the deveIOpment of what later became known as the Know

Nothing movement (Bennett 1995: 106). In 1850, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner

was founded in New York, and their ranks quickly swelled, often with OUA members.

 

‘ Throughout the war “there never materialized a national Protestant sentiment directed at transforming the
struggle into a Protestant jihad south of the border...[although] most southern Protestants, particularly the

79

Instructed to say they “know nothing” when outsiders asked about their society, Horace
Greeley of the New York Tribune contemptuously labeled them as such in 1853 (Bennett
1995: 110-112). At one time, the Know Nothings had over 1.25 million members and ten
thousand councils (McCauley 1990: 87). Most effective as a local movement, their
council system doubled as a political system for the American Party (the official name of
the Know Nothings) to elect seven governors, eight U.S. senators, and 104 U.S.
Representatives by 1856 (Fuchs 1990: 41; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 99). So effective
and popular was the American Party in 1855 that the New York Herald unhappily
predicted a presidential victory in 1856. But the very issue which helped unite the
American Party in the early 18505—slavery—proved too divisive just a few years later
(Bennett 1995: 116, 123-25; Anbinder 1992: 162-219).

Unable to ignore the slavery crisis in their own national meetings between 1854
and 1856, and accentuated by regional differences in group membership and objectives,
consensus in the American Party began to wane. In the West, antislavery forces in some
states brought immigrants into the restrictionist fold, while other state parties excluded
them (Bennett 1995: 136; Leonard and Parmet 1971: 95; Pitt 1961). Convinced that
immigrants opposed slavery and favored free soil, the South tended to be more anti-
immigrant than anti-Catholic. Immigrants supposedly “disrupted” their southern culture
by violating race relations etiquette and gaining entrance into city politics (Bennett 1995:
141-142; Miller 1985: 46-51). West of Buffalo, the Know Nothing party frequently
focused on foreign Germans instead of the Irish because they apparently resented their
economic achievements. In Texas, Germans and Catholic Mexicans were targeted, but in

New Orleans, Catholics belonged to the American Party (Bennett 1995:135, 144, 147).

 

Methodists and Baptists, were vigorous in their support of the war” (Hinckley 1962: 121-122).

80

While the Know Nothings were generally disliked Catholics and immigrants, the regional
differences underscore the multiple interests of restrictionists. Some exploited the
nativist theme for its political and economic dividends, others merged it with dissimilar
agendas, and still others entered as American patriots.

In 1856, the party’s candidate for President, Millard Fillmore, came in a distant
third, bringing the party’s activities to a close in most states. Except in a few border
states, the Know Nothings were little more than a shell by 1860. It would take a Civil
War, one fought by Catholics and immigrants alike, to expunge the anti-immigrant and
anti-Catholic sentiment of the sixties (Bennett 1995: 154-155; Miller 1985: 52). But the
transforrnative power of war could only last so long—new contexts and ideas would once

again bring nativists to their feet.

“Racial” and “Radical” Nativism: 1860-1929

The Civil War may have brought organized nativism to a transitory halt, but it was the
expanding economy and frontier that allowed immigrants to retain their wartime laurels
for the next two decades (Higham 1992: 13-14). Suspicious of disloyalty did however
emerge during the war. General Grant expelled Jews from his military jurisdiction in
1862, but revoked the order three weeks later at Lincoln’s request. In 1863, an effort to
revive the Know Nothing movement failed in New York as discontents from the Irish
working class participated in the four-day “draft riots” which were “widely interpreted as
a disloyal Irish conspiracy inspired by Confederate agents” (1992: 13). During the 18605
and 18705, European immigrants seemed to be a national blessing, but on the West Coast,
the Chinese were attacked by mobs and saddled with discriminatory laws (cf. Almaguer

1994; Higham 1992; Hing 1996; Lane 1987).

81

The Chinese, and later Japanese, encountered “racial nativism” much earlier than
did immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Many of the actions directed toward
them bore the imprint of a racial and nativist logic generally not seen when examining the
receptions given to European immigrants during the same time period (cf. Blauner 1972;
Barrera 1979: 34-57; Almaguer 1994). Not until the eugenics movement of the early
19005 were southern and eastern European immigrants exposed to a pervasive racial
logic. This is perhaps why Higham concluded that no “variety of anti-European
sentiment has ever approached the violent extremes to which anti-Chinese agitation went
in the 1870’s and 1880’s” (1992: 25).

Anti-Catholicism and anti-radical sentiment briefly flared in the 18705, although
both lacked “nativistic significance.” In 1875, Republicans in Ohio and New Jersey
successfully exploited the anti-Catholic theme for election purposes, but instead of
blaming immigrants, nativists directed their gaze toward the Catholic clergy. Among the
rioting immigrants in the railroad strikes of 1877 nativists saw the specter of communism
at work, but little was done to address this fear (Higham 1992: 30-31). Nativist agitation
also cropped up in the urban areas of the Northeast and older Midwest in the 18805
(Higham 1992: 63-64), but in 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act suspended almost all
Chinese immigration and also barred foreign-born Chinese from naturalizing, thereby
creating the infamous category “aliens ineligible for citizenship” (Lee 1989: 376; INS
Statistical Yearbook 1991). Anti-Chinese sentiment on the West Coast had been building
at least since the mid-18005, thanks in part to the efforts of California’s white working
class (Almaguer 1994: 178-180). The Chinese Exclusion Act was not repealed until

1943, when the U.S. and China were allies during the Second World War (Ueda 1981).

82

In May 1886, “the Haymarket Affair was to go down as the most important single
incident in late nineteenth century nativism” (Higham 1992: 54). In the midst of a
national strike for an eight-hour day, a meeting was called by Chicago anarchists in the
Haymarket Square. A bomb exploded as the police closed in on the peacefirl group.
“Instantly, a torrent of nationalist hysteria coursed through the cities of the Northeast and
Midwest” (1992: 54). Even though the police were unable to determine the bomber’s
identity, six immigrants and one native-born American were sentenced to death. The
aftershock of the Haymarket Affair revived some of the old fraternal organizations of the
18405 and 18505, especially the Junior Order United American Mechanics, whose
membership list quadrupled in just four years. The fiaternal orders were anti-radical first,
and anti-Catholic second, but local anti-Catholic societies sprang up in the eighties to
carry on the crusade. In 1887, the American Protective Association (APA) was
established in Iowa, and by 1890 “its local councils were flourishing in communities
from Detroit to Omaha” (1992: 63). But nativism never garnered a national following as
it had in the 18505. It seemingly lacked the kind of nationalist formula that equated
specific immigrant groups with subversive activity or inherently “uh-American” ideas
(1992: 54-64).

Following the economic downturns of the mid-18705 and mid-18805, the
depression in the 18905 contributed to a resurgence of nativist activities (Bennett 1995:
165; Higham 1992: 69, 94). European aliens found themselves ineligible for certain jobs
and Catholics increasingly became the targets of the American Protective Association.
The APA, over a half-million strong in 1894, was particularly active in the Midwest.

They accused Catholics of intentionally disrupting the economy for the purpose of

83

facilitating a Roman takeover, boycotted their businesses, and were involved in two
Protestant-Catholic riots. They helped re-elect William McKinley as governor of Ohio
and aided sympathizers in their bids for Congress (Bennett 1995: 171-178; Higham 1992:
80-87). But by the latter part of 1894, internal dissension racked the organization, and the
religious fervor of the organization canied less weight with a changing middle-class. “In
an increasingly secular culture, enthusiastic religion was passing out of middle-class life,
and without it the belief that popery lay behind the major national perils was hard to
sustain” (Higharrr 1992: 86). To frame this observation in the terminology of C. Wright
Mills (1940), the APA’s religious vocabularies of motive were “on the wane” and no
longer served as an “an unquestioned answer to questions concerning social and lingual
conduct” (pp. 907, 910). Their actions had changed little, but their justifications were
apparently beginning to lose their appeal among the middle class.

Anti-radical nativism also surfaced in the nineties, but in a much more violent
show of force. In 1897, deputies opened frre on a group of unarmed Hungarian and
Polish strikers in Pennsylvania, injuring forty immigrants and killing twenty-one. In
1891, eleven Italians were lynched in New Orleans (Bennett 1995: 169; Higham 1992:
88-90). However, an improving economy and the swift defeat of Spain in the 1898
Spanish-American War seemed to darn the current of restriction for a short while, but
another crisis would shortly reappear.

The twentieth century began on the restrictionist foot with the Immigration Acts
of 1903 and 1907. In response to the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 by
Leo Czolgosz, a native-born anarchist of obvious foreign extraction, Congress pushed for

the exclusion and deportation of alien anarchists. This objective was incorporated into

84

the more general 1903 bill, which expanded the criteria for excluding and deporting
aliens, and for the first time since the Aliens Act of 1798, penalized immigrants for their
political beliefs. The Immigration Act of 1907 doubled the head tax from two to four
dollars and authorized the President to deny admission to immigrants he deemed
detrimental to U.S. labor conditions. This provision was primarily aimed at Japanese
laborers (Higham 1992: 111-130; INS 1994: A.1-4 - A.1-5) and was followed by the
Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907-08, which sharply curtailed Japanese immigration (cf.
Hing 1993: 54).

Not until the second decade of the twentieth century were specific European
groups systematically filtered through a racial lens. The American Breeders’ Association
incorporated eugenics into its field in 1907 and in 1910, Sir Francis Galton launched the
eugenics movement in England. He and a host of others were committed to race
improvement through selective breeding. The National Committee for Mental Hygiene, 3
group of psychiatrists fearful that “mental defectives” would pollute future generations,
added a provision to the immigration bill of 1914 excluding people of “constitutional
psychopathic inferiority” (Higham: 1992: 151-152). But it was not until Madison Grant
published his Passing of the Great Race in 1916 that eugenicists and other race thinkers
received what later was to become an indispensable tool in reducing legal immigration—
a racial typology (Higham 1992: 152-157). Grant warned that the extinction of the
Nordic race was inevitable unless the hordes of Alpines, Mediterraneans, and Jewish
hybrids were turned back. Even though Grant’s book was relatively insignificant when it

debuted in 1916, “its appearance before America’s entry into the First World War

85

indicates that the old Anglo-Saxon tradition had finally emerged in at least one mind as a
systematic, comprehensive world view” (Higham 1992: 157, 201).

This world view was put on hold by America’s entrance into the First World War.
Although the circulation of The Menace, an anti-Catholic weekly, rose to over 1.5 million
by April, 1915, it lost a million subscriber’s in little over a year as the war with Germany
diverted the public’s attention to another “fifth column”—German-Americans (Higham
1992: 200-214). The Gennan-American Alliance’s bold support for Germany, the
virtually unanimous pro-Germany stance of the Gennan-American press, and a few
blundered attempts at sabotage by a group of Germans, was intolerable to a country
drunk on “100 per cent Americanism” (Conzen 1981: 422; Harrington 1981: 685;
Higham 1992: 204-207). Federal agents used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to arrest 6,300
Germans (“enemy aliens”), of whom 2,300 were interned. Congress also enacted the
1917 Espionage Act and 1918 Sedition Act to prosecute U.S. citizens of German origin
who “criticized the war effort or obstructed the dr ” (Ellis and Panayi 1994: 242).
During the war, Gennan-Americans not only “swatted” the hyphen, but also
Americanized German names—for example, Schmidt became Smith, East Germantown,
Indiana was renamed Pershing, and sauerkraut became “liberty cabbage” (Ellis and
Panayi 1994: 245). Nonetheless, these last minute demonstrations of loyalty did little to
pacify official or public sentiment. Volunteer “spy-hunting” organizations, such as the
American Protective League, continued to harass German Americans, and by early 1915,
fifteen states passed laws requiring that English be the language of instruction in all
public and private schools (Higham 1992: 211; Harrington 1981: 685; Kamphoefirer

1996: 157; Ross 1994).

86

After the war, Attorney General Palmer preserved America’s fear of foreign
subversives by creating the General Intelligence Division in 1919 to weed out “radicals.”
In a series of “Palmer raids” conducted between 1919 and 1920, agents from the
Department of Justice stormed Russian worker meeting places in twelve cities.
Thousands were arrested and hundreds of aliens were deported to Russia. Some were
even forced to leave their families behind (Higham 1992: 229-231; Bennett 1995: 190-
195). A false prediction of terrorism by Palmer in 1920, however, brought the Red Scare
to an abrupt end (Bennett 1995: 195-196). This debacle marks a transition in nativist
apprehension, where a fear of foreign radicals was increasingly overshadowed by a
general uneasiness with “inferior races.”

Between 1920 and 1927 Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent deplored the control
allegedly exerted by “International Jews” and, at one point, reached a circulation of
700,000. Two new editions of Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race also appeared in
the early twenties (Bennett 1995: 205-210; Higham 1992: 272-284). The Ku Klux Klan
stepped up its restrictionist and racist initiatives in the early twenties and acquired
somewhere between two and three million recruits by 1924 (Bennett 1995: 223; Higham
1992: 297). Although white supremacy played an influential role in the twenties, their
ideas converged on populations that seemed especially “foreign.” Catholics, Jews, and
foreigners were the Klan’s main targets (Higham 1992: 290-291). Eastern European
Jews faced discrimination in housing, employment, and college admissions in the
twenties (Gold and Phillips 1995: 184-185). Eugenicists were also hard at work,
conducting experiments in the laboratory and lobbying for less immigration in the

nation’s capitol.

87

The Immigration Act of 1924, which did not assume its full form until 1929,
barred “aliens ineligible for citizenship” and instituted a “national origins quota system.”
Primarily designed to limit immigration from southeastern Europe, the system used 1890,
then 1920, as the base year for determining annual quotas for eligible nationalities (INS
1996; Higham 1992: 300-330; Simon 1993: 67). The House Committee on Immigration
intended to discriminate against immigrants from southeastern Europe but realized they
could not Openly defend the bill on grounds of Nordic superiority nor shift to an older
census base without revealing their bias for immigrants from northwestern Europe.
Using 1920 as the quota base instead of 1890 proved to be equally restrictive without
appearing overtly racist (Higham 1992: 319-24).

The racial tone characterizing previous immigration dates, starting as early as
1918, is unmistakable: “Out of the rising vigor of the racial tradition in the early twenties
came one plea after another for an immigration law designed specifically to keep the old
stock from being ‘hopelessly bogged down in the mire of mongrelization’” (Higham
1992: 313). President Coolidge captured the sentiment well when he signed the National
Origins Act of 1924 by declaring that “America must be kept American” (cited in Gould
1981: 232). Such opinions were widely held and discussed in the early 19205, and
contrary to being the ravings of a few xenophobes and racists, were considered
intellectually sound.

The research and lobbying efforts of eugenicists helped to secure the passage of
the Immigration Act of 1924. During World War I, 1.75 million army recruits were
given mental age tests by Harvard Professor Robert M. Yerkes. Although his research

design was conceptually unsound and methodologically flawed (see Gould 1981: 199-

88

222), Yerkes and his assistant, E.G. Boring, had little problem accounting for the low
mental age of Nordics—the intelligent native stock was being swamped by the “dregs of
southern and eastern Europe” (Gould 1981: 196). This conclusion was followed by an
even more “scientific” finding—European immigrants could be ranked by their country
of origin. “The darker peoples of southern Europe and the Slavs of eastern EurOpe are
less intelligent than the fair peoples of western and northern Europe” (1981: 197). These
results were later transformed into a social prescription by CC. Brigham’s A Study of
American Intelligence (1923). Relying on Grant’s typology of three races, Brigham
concluded that the only way to arrest the deterioration of “American intelligence” (i.e.,
Nordic intelligence) was to regulate reproduction and restrict immigration (1981: 227-
230). Brigharn’s political advice and “hard” army data were used to help justify the
national origins system. Recognizing that he had measured one’s fluency in English and
culture, and not intelligence, Brigham recanted in 1930. But it was too late. Numerous

Jewish refugees, anticipating the holocaust, could not emigrate (1981: 232-233).

Wartime Nativism and Emerging Concerns: 1930-1998

“The darker, often understated, sides of the immigrants’ woes of the 19305 involved
those who elected to stay and were forced out and those who sought to enter and were
kept out” (Barkan 1996: 44). The deportation or repatriation of 500,000 to 600,000
persons of Mexican ancestry in the decennial wake of the Great Depression symbolizes
those who desired to stay but were forced out (Barkan 1996: 47; Samora 1971: 41). It is
estimated that by the end of the decade more than half of those who returned to Mexico
were American citizens and that a third of the Los Angeles Mexican community

emigrated to Mexico (Barkan 1996: 47; Sénchez 1993: 210).

89

Those who tried to enter, but were kept out—primarily Jewish refugees—
encountered a President and State Department hesitant to admit them as refugees or
expand the immigration quotas. However, these two offices are not solely to blame.
Public opinion polls between 1938 and 1941 reveal a pervasive anti-Semitism that clearly
influenced Roosevelt’s position (Barkan 1996: 50-5 3; Bennett 1995: 265; Simon and
Alexander 1993: 31; Simon 1993: 68). Anti-Semitism was steered through the air waves
by Father Coughlin, a Detroit-area Roman Catholic priest. While his Christian Front
against Communism focused on “the problem of the American Jews,” Coughlin reprinted
the speeches of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in his widely-read newspaper,
Social Justice and personally praised the “social justice” meted out by the Third Reich.
With an estimated 30 million listeners by the mid-thirties—not to mention a wide
readership—Coughlin amassed the largest radio audience in the world. But his support
for Germany against the “British-Jewish-Roosevelt conspiracy,” and the banning of
Social Justice from the mails—for violating the Espionage Act—contributed to his
downfall (Bennett 1995: 253-266).

Fearful of a fifth column, Congress established a set of internal and external
barriers when war erupted in Europe. “Admissions from Nazi-occupied countries were
reduced by 75 percent” and Congress enacted the Alien Registration Act in 1940,
requiring all resident aliens fourteen and older to be fingerprinted and register annually
(Barkan 1996: 58-59; Daniels 1993: 24). On 8 December 1941, the day the U.S. declared
war against Japan, President Roosevelt directed the FBI and other related agencies to
arrest all Italian and German aliens they regarded as a threat to national security (Fox

1988: 410; 1990: 52). By 4 February 1942 the FBI had arrested 261 Italians and 1,361

90

Germans, and by 5 October 1943, 5,300 Japanese, 3, 503 Italians and 5, 977 Germans
had been taken into custody. Of those arrested, none were convicted of sabotage,
although 228 Italians were interned for various lengths of time (Fox 1990: 151-163; Nelli
1981: 558).

On 19 February 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066,
authorizing the army, under the Secretary of War’s direction, to “prescribe military
spaces” and exclude “any or all persons” as military necessity required (Executive Order
9066, cited in Myer 1971: 307). While the words “Japanese” and “Japanese American”
are never mentioned in the order, they alone were interned en masse (Daniels 1972: 70-
71). By 7 August 1942, nearly all of the West Coast Japanese (112,704 in all, nearly
two-thirds of whom were American citizens) were either in War Relocation camps or in
Wartime Civil Control Administration (W CCA) Assembly centers (Daniels 1972: 104).
The camps were scattered throughout the U.S. interior and reached as far as Jerome,
Arkansas (Daniels 1993: 56). Life in the camps was not unduly harsh, and with the
exception of barbed wire and armed sentries, bore little resemblance to the concentration
camps in Germany (Daniels 1972: 105). However, they dwelled in barracks, ate in mess-
halls, used communal toilets and showers, dressed in identical clothing, and endured days
marked with monotony, tension, and violence (Kitano 1981: 567-568). By 1943, the
WRA began to release “evacuees” who satisfied certain requirements, and by January
1945, most Japanese were allowed to leave the camps (Polenberg 1980: 67-70).

The fate of German and Italian aliens came fi'ightfully close to that of the
Japanese, but in the end took on a much smaller course. F rom January to May 1942,

various officials at the local, regional, and federal level requested that “all 'enemy' aliens

91

and their families be interned for the duration of the war” (Fox 1988: 407-408; 1990: 41).
The failure to realize this objective can be attributed to, among other things, bureaucratic
infighting between the War and Justice Departments, racism, the logistics of relocating
and/or interning possibly millions of Germans and Italians, and the recognition that such
an action would inevitably interrupt the war effort (Fox 1988: 435-438; 1990: 183-187).
All three groups were ordered to evacuate certain military areas in March 1942
(approximately 2,500 to 3,000 Italians were required to leave Monterey Bay alone), but
in April, while the Japanese were being transported to concentration camps, German and
Italian aliens endured “silly indignities,” such as a 9 pm. to 6 am. curfew, travel
restrictions, and the confiscation of their cameras, radios, and firearms. The restrictions
lasted approximately nine months and affected most of the German and Italian aliens on
the West Coast (Fox 1990: 59-88).

Mexican Americans in Los Angeles were also portrayed as a fifth-column, albeit
for a shorter period of time. Between 1942 and 1943, descriptions of “Mexican juvenile
delinquency either replaced or were printed alongside stories of supposed disloyalty
among interned Japanese Americans. Chicano youth were increasingly depicted as the
‘enemy within’” (Sénchez 1993: 267). Such press accounts continued to inflame public
opinion, and in June 1943, Anglo servicemen and Mexican American youth clashed for
ten days in the “loot Suit Riots.” Tearing off the youths’ oversized suits and assaulting
them, Anglo servicemen were joined by civilians in their provocations and confrontations
with the “zoot suiters” (Sénchez 1993: 267; Barkan 1996: 70).

Primarily because of the Cold War, a fear of foreign radicals did not subside with

the war’s end. Passage of the McCarran Intemal Security Act in 1950 made membership

92

“in any subversive organization. . .grounds for exclusion, deportation, denial of
citizenship, and even the loss of citizenship” (Barkan 1996: 76). The McCarran-Walter
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 brought this policy and the preceding myriad of
immigration and naturalization laws under one legislative roof. Although the act
preserved the basic national origins formula and fortified the federal government’s
deportation powers, it removed race as a barrier to naturalization, thereby eliminating the
infamous category “aliens ineligible for citizenship” (INS 1994: A. 1-12; Barkan 1996:
77; Ueda 1981: 746). However, the act continued to emphasize what wartime actions had
already made clear—that the rights of naturalized citizens were not quite equal to those of
native-born citizens. Membership in a supposedly subversive group was grounds for
denaturalization, as well as deportation and exclusion (Barkan 1996: 104).

Another initiative connected to the wartime effort was “Operation Wetback.” At
the request of U.S. employers, the “bracero program” began when the U.S. and Mexico
“signed an international agreement to allow Mexican contract laborers (braceros) to work
in agriculture, railroad construction, and maintenance” (Romo 1996: 92). Although the
agreement was extended several times until its cessation in 1964 (Romo 1996: 92), an
increasing number of border apprehensions in the early fifties prompted Eisenhower to
appoint a new INS Commissioner to curb illegal border crossers. In 1954, the INS
launched “Operation Wetback” and “apprehended more than one million undocumented
Mexican persons and nearly one-quarter million more the following fiscal year” (Barkan

1996:84).5

 

5 Apprehension statistics are based on events, not individuals. A person apprehended three times during a
fiscal year “will appear three times in the apprehension statistics” (INS 1996: 159).

93

Although not fully implemented until 1968, the national origins system was
finally abolished with the non-controversial passage of the 1965 Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendments, thereby removing the ban on Asian entry. However, a
ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration impeded the legal migration of Latin
American immigrants for the very first time (Daniels 1991: 338; Massey 1995: 637-63 8;
INS 1994: A.1-14).

Nevertheless, between the end of World War II and the early 19805, immigration
received (relatively speaking) scant attention from the public and policymakers (see
Table 1). America apparently had more pressing matters to deal with—the “blight of
affluence,” poverty, juvenile delinquency, communism, and civil rights (of. Ehrenreich
1990; Fuchs 1990). However, by the mid to late seventies, another wave of
“neorestrictionist” sentiment emerged (Daniels 1991: 388; Espenshade and Hempstead
1996: 538-539). Beginning in April 1980, and ending the following fall, 125,000 Cubans
arrived in the United States. Precipitated by a three-way dispute between the U.S., Cuba,
and Peru—and Castro’s declaration that people could leave as long as they went directly
to the U.S.—thousands of Cuban exiles violated U.S. law by chartering boats in Miami
and traveling ninety miles to Cuba’s Mariel Harbor to pick up “relatives, friends, and
anyone else there was room for” (Daniels 1991: 347; Pedraza 1996: 269). According to
the INS, about nineteen percent of the Mariel refugees admitted to having been jailed in
Cuba, although it “considered only 7 percent to be serious criminals—less than 2 percent
of all the Marielitos” (Pedraza 1996: 271). The press, however, accentuated the criminal

element in their portrayals of the Marielitos (Pedraza 1996: 269-271), and even afforded

94

Al Pacino the opportunity to complement his performance in The Godfather by assuming
the role of another gangster in Scar Face.

In 1983 Senator Hayakawa and John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist,
founded U.S. English for the purpose of establishing English as the nation’s official
language. Although an “anti-bilingual ordinance” had already been approved in Dade
County, Florida in 1980, and other official language laws had been passed in several
states before 1980, the organized and well-financed U.S. English immeasurably
contributed to what became known as the “English Only” movement (cf. Draper and
Jimenez 1990/1992; Crawford 1992). Between 1981 and 1990, ten Southern and
Midwestern states established English as their official language, and by 1990, seventeen
states “had adapted laws or constitutional amendments designating English as their
official language” (Crawford 1992: 16; Tatalovich 1993).

The objectives of U.S. English and other related groups were questioned by
expansionists because of their association with restrictionist, and allegedly racist,
organizations. During Tanton’s tenure as chairman of FAIR, the Federation received
approximately half a million dollars from The Pioneer Fund, an organization which funds
eugenics and race-IQ research. U.S. English may have also received funding from The
Pioneer Fund, but this allegation remains at the level of speculation (Stefancic 1997;
Torres 1993: 255-58; Crawford 1992: 160). Tanton denied any knowledge of their
eugenics agenda, but a 1986 memorandum to participants of an upcoming WITAN
meeting (a forum where prominent restrictionists met to discuss matters of culture,
language, immigration, and population) confirmed, for expansionists, suspicions of

racism.

95

The “thought-provoking” memo became public in 1988 when the Arizona
Republic published portions of it shortly before Arizona voters approved the “Official
English” initiative. Tanton wrote: “Will the present majority peaceably hand over its
political power to a group [Hispanics] that is simply more fertile?. . .Perhaps this is the
first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with
their pants down! . . .” (cited in Crawford 1992: 151). Tanton explained that the memo
was written for “a group of people who were already initiated into immigration,
population, and language issues,” but nonetheless decided to resign from U.S. English
before the excerpts were published “in hopes that the crest of the controversy would pass
by election day” (FAIR Tenth Anniversary Oral History Project, Tanton: 76).
Numerous authors have portrayed the agendas of U.S. English and other “English
Only” organizations as surrogates for racism and/or immigration restriction because of
their connection to non-linguistic organizations (e.g., see Torres 1993), but others have
found it difficult to infer motives because of the organizations’ members and their
explanations:
Sponsors of Official English initiatives became a moving target for anyone seeking
to pin them down about their goals. One day they appeared as jackbooted language
police, the next as high-minded seekers of ethnic harmony. . .Some prominent
advocates of Official English have foreign accents and liberal politics; surprisingly
few have Anglo-Saxon surnames. . .Some of these assimilated first- and second-
generation Americans are among the most militant exponents of English Only.
Which makes it problematic to pin charges of nativism, ethnocentrism, or racism
on those who hold such views (Crawford 1992: 18-19, 24-25).

Investigating motives requires researchers to look beyond individuals and contexts if they

are to leave analytical room for the diversity of motives and vocabularies found within

each restrictionist organization and/or event.

96

Just as the Mariel incident exhibited a sizable gap between immigration policy
and the reality of migration (Daniels 1991: 347), so too did the events following the
passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA). Although IRCA was
restrictionist in intent, the status of nearly 3 million formerly undocumented immigrants
was legalized and “did not stop the flow of unauthorized migrants, despite a big drop
immediately after 1986” (Rumbaut 1996: 27-28; Hondagneu—Sotelo 1994: xiv). During
this time, restrictionist sentiment “represented less a response to undocumented migration
per se than to undocumented immigrant settlement. . .Claims. . .of the ‘Mexicanization,’ or
reconquista (reconquest) sometimes animated this discourse” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994:
xv). Accusations that settled immigrants were “unassimilable,” stealing jobs from U.S.
citizens, and weakening the economy through their use of social services, helped to lock
in the legislation (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994: xv).

In early 1991, a number of events in the Midwest resembled those taken by the
public and U.S. government during the First and Second World Wars. Arab Americans
were the target of numerous hate crimes during the Persian Gulf War, including physical
assaults, two bombings of an Arab American owned grocery store in Cincinnati, and a
bomb threat to a Detroit area high school where students of Arab descent constituted
almost half of the student body (Edmonds 1991b: 3A). In addition to these reactions, FBI
agents questioned hundreds of Arab Americans in the Detroit area and throughout the
country about their political views and knowledge of potential terrorists (Cook 1991:
12A; Edmonds 1991a: 8A).

On 8 November 1994, voters in California passed Proposition 187 by a 59% to

41% margin, an initiative designed to exclude all “illegal aliens” from tax supported

97

benefits, such as public education and welfare. “According to exit polls, 64 percent of
whites, 57 percent of Asian Americans, 56% of Afi'ican Americans, and 31 percent of
Latinos voted in favor of Proposition 187” (Martin 1995: 255-59). Although some
sections of the proposition were immediately challenged, a dozen other states were not
dissuaded fiom considering similar measures (Martin 1995; Espenshade and Hempstead
1996: 536). The “Save Our State” (SOS) initiative developed in a context of rapidly
increasing non-white immigration to the state and a prolonged recession, although
Hondagneu-Sotelo reasons that the provisions were largely directed at women and
children because “they are central to making settlement happen” (1995: 170).

The publication of Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation (1995) helped disseminate the
symbol of Proposition 187. Recommended for serious consideration by some reviewers,
the book secured multiple headlines and television appearances for Brimelow. One of
Brimelow’s suggestions—that U.S.-bom children of unauthorized residents be denied
automatic citizenship (1995: 265)—was even adopted by the 1996 Republican platform.
Although it had been introduced to Congress prior to the Republican convention (e.g., see
Delgado 1997), the guidance was apparently too controversial for presidential politics, as
the recommendation was later repudiated by Bob Dole, the Republican candidate for
President.6

Controversy did not end with the proposal, however, as Congress remade
immigration law in 1996. It enacted anti-terrorism and welfare reform legislation in
April and August, respectively. The bills included provisions concerned specifically with

non-citizens, but in September, Congress enacted the broad-gauged Illegal Immigration

6 Sample, Herbert A. Dole: Allow citizenship for illegal immigrants’ kids. [Online] Available
http://sacbee.com/news/election/daily/daily082496.htrnl, August 24, 1996.

98

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). The bill, in large measure, dealt
with illegal immigration, but also addressed—among other issues—asylum adjudication,
crime, and judicial review. Many of the provisions were considered fair, although some
portions of the bill were viewed as unduly harsh, especially those pertaining to asylum
claims (Legomsky 1997). Lastly, in 1998, California voters overwhelmingly approved
Proposition 227 (60.9% in favor of the ballot measure). The initiative requires that “all
students in public schools be taught primarily English unless their parents requested

otherwise?”

Group Position and the Context of Nativism
The definition of nativism developed in chapter two is largely guided by the perspective
and approach of symbolic interactionism. On the surface, this does not seem to be the
case—nativism is “a native defense of proprietary claims over and against the
encroachment of aliens.” Below the surface of this terminology, however, lies various
assumptions, arguments, and observations concerning the thoughts and feelings of
natives. In the final analysis, nativist behavior pivots on their definition and evaluation
of the situation, not on the researcher’s judgment of the matter. If natives perceive the
conduct or presence of aliens as a threat to their proprietary claims and seek to defend
these claims, then nativism has occurred, if these claims are generally perceived as
illegitimate by the native populace. As emphasized earlier, definitions of aliens and

legitimacy are variable.

7 Streisand, Betsy. Is it hasta la vista for bilingual ed? [Online] Available http:www.usnews.com/usnews/
news/enghighhtm, November 18, 1997. Also see: State Ballot Measures. [Online] Available
http://Primary98.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/, July 10, 1998.

99

But the question still remains: Under what conditions does heightened nativist
activity occur? Natives may feel threatened by those they define as “alien” and have the
power to enforce their claims, but the appearance of nativism is not guaranteed by the
presence of such contingencies. There is a need to contextualize these processes.
Nativism scholars fiequently attribute the occurrence of nativism to increases in
immigration and worsening economic conditions (e. g., Bennett 1995; Calavita 1996;
Muller 1997; Perea 1997), but can one ever really know the “cause” or “causes” of
nativism? Probably not, but one can recognize the conditions that give rise to its
occurrence.

Table 1 correlates some of the cultural, demographic, economic, and social
conditions typically associated with nativist behavior. These include the relative size and
composition of immigration waves, size of the foreign-born population, business cycles,
and domestic and international conflicts. These are not the only factors associated with
nativism, but are some of the more regularly imposed terms. Pertinent data before 1830

are unavailable, and therefore preclude a comparison of prior historic events.

100

BE“ 58m? « E 888 ”canvases 335235 gm 5058.4. 09: o

983020 88m 3 motoao? Em user—08¢. m9:-
=32 a mu 8.8m 2m§oaom 38M: 05

6:va mugs—m ~96 moEzu gm Saar—0:2? :oSSO Ecuaz mm: o

\4 3.233 82-53

Bias. $538: bonus? \ E:
a 62:8 gain: as 5: a 85,. new: am.
.833: 8.8885 and 35.533:
ozofiao G853 maowfiqohng can Sat 320832.

.3243—

 

e

 

$533 5% fioeogéoaoz .

o A3603: ooeovcomoufi mo 83 $on

mafia—SO Facts—Eouu—Bumofien

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«8 am a a i 8 cash 3 fine;
E 33: .395 32:5
2.: .m 2.: .m 2.: .m 852 .m 58528: :3
“Ea—oh .N .93830 .N x5850 .N .Md .N we woman—SO
barge ._ was: ._ n53 _ 2.2.95 ._ .895 8...:
I :2 u a? : .a< I w? #3 8.2? .as: 5%
$0; uw< I ”9» I m< _1 nm4.» 53V «35844. 5:5
:3 ”<4 $2 “5 $3. ”<4 $3 ”<4 .Some Scam Qma
a”. U8% can. ”momm $3 ”memo. $3 u5mm 56m: 8530 as 805m 32
so? ”832 $4.3 UREE saw nems/z $26 “0852 239% .5 8528: :3 co as»;
E 3 mm 2 .8:an .md 82 an
acting—Eu Euca— uo 8am .as—:5.
: 333 and? 3.0% 3%: sagtiafié an“:
... .. _.. n.... mien— .m.D =35. he caesquSK e\..
§.§.: 332.8 3.58.: 838.2 232:9..— .md
33 £3 82 887:5: on: 818: $2 82%: an: 3288 as» 225

 

 

    

 

awn—-3.»—

Sam 50:25 2: Ea ..mwseoz 395x. a
8 cob—£2 83: 88.5.“ 5:55 335% gm o5 .8 BED c2: c
Sat {Sr 302 EH «Ea—ovflfim 3.x _ o
388m 252V cocam8mm< 26885 50:25., New _ o

@826? uses won: 35
ufi0a0>oa oiamzrflé o

fisfiz 505.5 cc Banana _ 03¢

awn—Aun—

101

80: omofiaoIESmoaoi 95 E 3335 385. <m< v9: o
mmohwnoo 9 manna—38% £58 can 030 .«o
uoEo>ow ma deuce—0.2 >059: 9 8:53:00 <32 ma“: 0

803 05 E 20:83“ 80:30.92 o
$.0ng can $85.52 B a: mafia 36:05“ng o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>1 8.253 82.53 K 237::
as»: E» Earningsaw . $33: 33 =5 50:05 . 32:26 .«Seafiséoemoao:
:52 2a 2a «3 «8 2; EN 2: So :0 5 sea 3 $8:
:5 Sa :3: 43 «SM: 2: 2:: «8 22: 8.05 mania
:25 55% .m was: .m nae: .m use: .m 3528.: :3
.§:-§< .N as .N 2.: .N 2.: .N cc 85550
be: ._ b52500 ._ hamauoo A hcmfiuoO A «moaned 09:;
I “,2 I ””2 I a? I 5, pg 8:2 $3 53
:2 ”we. .52 Hwe, $3 um< and ”we. 2d «stag 553
$3 ”<4 goo ”5 a; ”5 $2 “5 $89 88$ 98m
a». _ m “5% $2: Hmama as; s H8% .52 H8% 695% «ease an 885 >22
555.3. ”8.592 $2: nems/z :2.” H0852 $4.3 uPugs/z cacao xv 8538a :3 as new»:
3 2.. 3 me 5:2: 8 .mfi 8.: a
Eczema—Eu 3M3 no 8am _a=:=<
43.33” 293% 5.23 EELS 23:22.2 :55.“ 3
92 S; a: 3: den .3. Bob .3 53:32.; .x.
33.8.? SEES $32.8 Stung afldll
3333 82 89%; ca: 833: 32 8:3: as: 32908 a; 2.200

 

 

 

 

 

    

menu—c0 >>02 E 3:25 means: 555 3M: o
Unease“ A<m<v aoummoozmmrfl o>coo~o£ gorge 5M: o

as? Hessian an: .
s< 832m 0855 Na: .

 

83-3w—

.choe _ 2.3

      

H83 06 E aoufimwa 3830-93 o
amok/ES can 686.82 E a: 88c aflozofiauég o
55 View >52 5. wot taco mom: .
SE 383 025 woo—98
$8.8 eons 82m $52 mo comm—59mm mom: a

chm—IS”—

102

mvowq< 8A E flat .38 80N= $2 0
$58.50 was muouubmmwou ms :26 £8qume voofl

A88 swan“? .moEAaooA 58.80 Sea vows—axe SE5 BEBE 2a
323 5%: 28 58.80 089m 62:85 93 Aime 585:3.
29$ Eon? mo mEAfiéEv 805mg 680 so? cog”: 9.3 o

canons—an: 889$ Sosa mammto A3282 mNoAANaAo
nos—AS m 93 N 5953 8 $322: 3:52 vUUCo 89852 «N3 o
83$ aouaafio fiaufifiofius 8338 $5 b8: 82-82 .

“8:“ go 83.8% Ba 52% ”.22 s§£ $2-52 .
383;: .553 S BEE 83 Ba 335 20% 5E8 83 .
8533 83A 32m 23.. usuam $55 22 .

 

anal—«mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\A .233 32-3% \/
.618: = 33 283 . $3: a? seam 5055.505: . . 33;: A a? 253 32:80 Racuafisugcaacn
3v :3 SN 2N SN SN 2: t: t: 23 to 3 48m A: $8;
2v «2% 2:. Km 2% +2 «mm 2% 2: t: 3:: So Zoe 3.06 "852.:
2.: .m b2 .m 283 .m .Sm-.§< .m Ea: 338 .m 3523: :5
325 .N «350 .N 882 .N SE: 538 .N 32 .N a. 82:55
banana A banana A «9280 A has A .gm-ums< A «mowuww— ooh—H.
$3 “”2 $9 ””2 x3 ””2 $3 “”2 $3 ”"2 E<V 8:? 34$ 23
:3 HQ $3 H3. :2 Hm< :3 H2 .x. 2 HQ $5 SEE 33
$3; ”5 x; ”<4 9%.: ”5 $3 ”<4 :2 "5 Gummy 825 98m
.52 ”5% $3.“. Hmama xix Hmomm xix Hmama §.% ”8% Omazv 895 B“ 235m 32
.58 Uwas; gown ”85E .5? Omaz :2; “OMS/z {exam u852 cacao .5 8528: :5 E as»;
S to 3 E I: 5:2: 8 .3. 8.: b
actwqu—Eu Aqua:— uo 3am _a==:<
@8me Exam 8326 :w‘mmmm £3.33 fiEEEE is;
3 3 9: 2: 5; $5 .m.: .3; Ac EBflwSm .x.
$583 2 Ego; 2 333$ 892mm: 338. A a saga—om .md
82%: cm: 813: $3 838: cm: 8383 3a 828: 3.: 9289 555:8
v

   

 

 

amen—ma—

AmoMoA 3a: 838E800 flaw/x 68m 5550 951380 85mm o
nommmoaom 380 05 mo 83>» 05 S cutoaov 3:3qu
going $630qu 9828 52on me 3023 ooodooéoodom o

APESV A 2.5

    

238308 8:896 3:282 now—«O $28.5 .mm 23 o
Eofioohw/x Macao—Eow 8-82 .
388m 0533 :OAQonm 831.?» 33 o

33.5%

103

032:3 8:838 SEE 2: ameoaao 5 RN 82835 mo 0938 .

23528; Rm": €2.wno_ you Pa 2? mafia 5%: mo REV—Eu Bentmd 9 QEmaano mo 35% 05 8898a E833 Swozpsmom 32 o
ESE $3 93235 .3an mo aousznfi 32 .
03325 $08 :25m 50 23m: 2: insane a a: gamma?“ mo owamfi 32 .

 

\/

moato 83 may; 8 688.33 98 .83 :50 quake; wars Em .3 605525 manor—one £55. 33 o
8.283 52.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. :3: a? :5 535 338: 33:28 EBoS . 38: E5 2E3 535 . 32:50 3532535335
8» 3” Sc 3m «3 3 v3.5 3 awash
:5 as F 52 25 :9: 2K :3 :2: 2% «me 8.05 553a
.m mofimmmmfih .m any—OM .m \33H .m Cows: .m Oofiufimnom “wax—
.N §mw< .550 .N moammmfifinm .N @6530 .N NUS—MU .N HO momhuflflco
.H 00902 .H Gods: A Cows: .H \Afldgoo A amowhfiwm ovum—H.
a< $3 ”5‘ $3 a? £3 5‘ §d ““2 £3 8£< d3 22
HQ $2M Hm< xmwm um< «3.2 ”Q $3 nm< Ed SEE £3
”5 .x; .2 “5 $2; “5 :3; “<4 xmam “<4 68% 085m 98m
H5% .32 U5% §.: ”3% §£ ”momm £92 ”8% 6”,”an 825 23 385m 32
U9,52 $3 6852 $2: ”852 $93. nREE gm: H0,652 A383 é 3528a :3 a. 8&3.
3 E S 2 Scam .3. 8.: an
nocauflfifim EMS .«c 35— _«==:<
Sean? 3 983 “3.8? $53 22.2 .5: Eu: 3 3
3 S 3 E .95 .md .85 .8 53%;.” .x.
33:43.“ awmfidfi 23°38 £183.: fission .md

 

 

.333: 82

 

"swam: 83

 

838: 33

 

828: ES

 

833: 82

 

@93on 53> mam-.00

 

 

8:230 83 “32:58 m mo 352 ea 03 a: mo 532 $2 .

3:83. nm=w=m .m.D 32 .- GEO E85> mo .5652 $2 0

   

 

baa-53

.3283 H 033‘

8:302 823%: 82 .

$8803 82230.. 926:8 m5 :2 .

caaT—ma

104

88 .82 :8: 5 288888 88 888 .888 8 8888 8885 88 880 8 88 .82 :8: 5 88,88 8888 885 .82 8 88:85 3 882
.68: 8888 888. 888888 .88. 880 88 .8885 .8888 888888 .882 .882 .8882 .88 .888 .282 282 .885 H8888 a2 88. .
...88880 880.. 8 8888 8 883 .888 83 88.5 888 888888 .88» 88 8 .82 .88 88:8 88 8882 88 888.

6 28888... 88 888 .888 8 8888 882 88 .8888 _m .8888 82:88 8888.5 88888 888882 .8 88 .82 .85 3 288888
88 888 .888 8 88888 85 88 88 .82 =8: 5 82 $82 888 8822 8 2888 88 .2 S 82 88 888888 88888 88

8882 8.2 8888 888 5 U882 .68: 888.2 888 8888888 .8882 58m 88 .885. 8880 88880 .8882 8888 Ed 888< 888 _
83289; 3 3988 Eovwfim 2555 can .880 .nbm 05 .NNE 85m 82835 98 .8880 .38m

8 88882 88 88 888 .83 888888 8888... 8 .82 8 as 82 8.8 88832 88 82888 88 02 E 82 .88 8888880 .8 2888 88
.2 3v ”88 8 88 88:8 88882-88822 .8 88888 € 2888.0 8 8888 888.... 88 88 22.82 882 E 88.5 8.58 88 88 .8880
28882-8888 8 8888 888.2 88 88 .28 782 882 5 22-82 88 o; 782 8888 888:8 88 888 888 =8 .8 88888 8888

8: human: 28 2.821% .8.“ 289 A3 xofi ES. Eton».— «o: Dumas: 98 2.8232 .59 Sam A 3 ”8oz .mowSaoobn mo 20m 53 Ba 32. 0.53 25322838 228m
22. .88: 888:2 8 888.8 82-82 .8 888888 .8882 88882 82 .N 28.8 888 88888 8» 722 88 88888.2 8.888;

88 888m .88: 888 8888.2 .8888 .8888 .282 .885 888.8883 .8m82888< "8888 288m 8880 88 888m .8882 22m ..
88888 8 8888 888.8. 8.2 88 2.2-82 88.. A: 8882 888 88

88 .88ng .88828882 8 8888 8888 88 88 .22-82 88.2 22 88_ :88 888888 88888 88 8888.882 88 8880 8.2 8888
888 5 288888 8.85. 882 885 =8 .8288 8888 .882 88.2 .888... 882 885 8 8882 8888882 88 8880 .82 3 8.5 S
8888 .8882 88 .883 .8888 888.8 8 8.88 8888-... 885 .8 88 .82 88.0. 5 52 .88 88.888 8882 88 883m 88 8382 5
888 6 8888 8 8888 8888 8882 8.2 88 .82 s 8.5 E 882 888888 8 88 58 .8 88 83 888888 888 2:. #8: 8883.
8 88828 82-82 88 8888888 .8882 88882 82 .N 288 888 88888 82-82 88 8888888 8888882 88 8880 88882
885 88_8§8m 888.2882 888.82 .8888 28880 .888”. 88888 .8885 8888 8880 88 888m 2883 88 88886 32 .
A 83 2.83 8 Sta coma—up 205 2023

8 85.88 53> 86228 08 855.8 358% 28 San .Bonwsob: 038888 8: 0.8 63783 carom .88 05 8.2 32828 $0.558 58.50 3.2 23
atom—om 25889 8.2 852:8 328on .8.“ 23 .«o 202 88 .8558 we 22. 5 names? 5.5953 3 nomads“. mo omsaoom .523 .«o >258 8 homo.— mméwa .52
Sub 98 ”88028.— 285852 82 mo .9258 89 88 3423 98 3.82 Eob 23 688 20:8 85:3 5.25 Mo .9560 8 822 no.2 8 SE 280» 88 889 a
838.28 0882 86 < mom-Sm 82228.0 3.982823 822258 202238 2358 .3 C 033- £8968»

88282 88: 888 88.8288 888 8888 8 888.88 88782 8 888 .n 288 .8888... 8828-4 8 882 v8 782 .8 882 .888 8
.8382: 088 .82 283 noun—smog 2.3 8:58 mo 6:» .3 229 noun-98:: 3:98 .3 :28 25.3% .3 @3388 892 down—anon .m.D 89.— .82 88 3:5 a
den“ 28:. on magic 22:98 c 238 «of 80» Rome 28 "28% 32882 05 mo

:- 888888 288 8.888 2 88 82 88 22 88» 888 5.2 888288 888 8888 8 8.8 $2 8% 882 .88_ 88. 8.88:8 88888
“on 203 283.5 8:3 25.98:: mm “.8580 Ho: v.53 820 :38 .3 mam—32o 80:8 :23 7N3— EE-m .3528“ 2882502 8m @0258 2828 28.22222
.8282 88 8-82 8.8 888 288 888888 .882 88 8-82 888 "8888 8 888 888888 88 88888 8888 .882 888 882 _.
652828 8: Sam 8

88 782 .8 :8: 88888 88 8a 782 .8 2 Em .22 s 88.2 8880 888. 88$ .88 8:88- 8:28: 8 838 0 8.88 8m ..

.3 822. .82 .28 .82 c 888. 885 888 88888 88882 .8880 88 8 825 .2: 88 :2 .83 2 Em .22 s 88.2 28.880 882 885
23% 82.2282 3.2.83: com £23328: :05 can £8qu855 mam—Bo mo 29:28 855w 8 Sn .2550 82 05 :25 @3305 8: 0.8 «8263 was 87.82 .
"moon—Sm can 832

105

.00.. 08 .0... 88580

..w.0v 000000 8888 .00 00800800 000000 000 0088000 080m £00050 0000 m7: .00 0030000000 £02; ”Sam: 08000000m 0000 000000000— 580: 00800300m “$003
0808.0 0680 0.8: 38830 ”0.80 80880 0.8 .0080 ”0-0 8300 .8880 08.0080 88 .8080 80880.82 0.8 8020880 0.: 0 80
.080 e 005.00 8.0880 0.800 3.0.5 20.8 8.00080 08.83: x8 .02 0 080 880 80:5 20.8 8280 08.00080 .8080 20 00 0.880 0.: 08080

.280 8 00— 00000.0 002008.00 000— 00:. .85. ”0000 00800003005

:20 3000000880 0£ £023 .003 80805 0000—00008 08 008.. .m.D 000 00000 00 080083 802005 05 00800500 0000200000 0000 0000000. 000 .003 E a
28888 0080 008050 38 0880 .

.0030 0.80 88800 08 0.8.0 88080 8:08 0.0 003808080

0003 0005 680.50— 00033 005 00008000 00 00 6880000 0000 80000880 00088 0000008885 0_0>0_ 000008880 0000 0000 .0_0>0_ 08083880 000000 000=wm
0005 H0800 00?. .Gm “002 800836 :wnmxvm 0000 «3.8— 00000880 0000008080— 4000: £023 .8 .3380 0000 03.2.0 0000000 0080000800 50000000000

32 0000 ~03 8 000808010000: 0003 $0.30.— 0020 .00 ”00008 00083 05 008 0000800 3003— 0003 0800888 0.3.0me .00 00000 000000 0 500

8. . .0000» 8008000000 0000 300 .0000 000 00000000 £5 8 00000000 000 >000. . 000308 800 080 000 0000 0000 .00 00 0000000000 800008000 00 08000 £05 000000.000
0% .8 08 £000 088 8088 888 .8888 880802 03008 80:8 5 0.8008 .2 .080 0c <00: 05 0o 80088 20 088 080 0.8 0000
0080 0800 a 03802 a; 038 82? 8.0 N80 88 880 B80 20. a 8202 0.2 903 050088 0388888 08080 00 0.80.0 8220 80.. .
.0000 :8: a 003 0—003 0080 500880 800 B0 .m.D 0£._. 0

.22 £080 0 003 0—003 0080 £0880 8: 000 .m.D 0£._. a

.000£

000208 000 00000>0 000000830 0000 0880—00 0008 05 >000 .3800 00000003008 .5: \0 00=0~0ER 8 00000000 000000000 8080000008 000 0000800 00 0.800% .0
.3000 08000000m 0000 00000000& 030 0000000 80—000 000 0000 8000000008 0

00000000 030 8 08 8000000 000 0—0080m 0000003 .09 00 00805 0000005 .3 080000000 0 £3 030000 00300 0000 n: 0000303 00000 0.0000008008000088 .0000:
.803 00 ©0802 0 00:00 000 >8000000 000 8 800508.. 000 00 CV 30000 a: 000 080 63 30000 00300 0 00003000 080 000 000 40000000000 00 080000000 0 00:00

0000 >8000000 05 8 8003000300 0 00 A: 30000 00300 0 0000 A: 30000 a: 000 0000303 080 000 .0000: .mmfi £0002 00 3.3 00:90.00 800.0 8005000300 82 05
@0800 008.000 0000000009 00000 0E. .380 £00020 £w0000 008000 0 0000 830 0008300 x000 0 .980 00008085 £w=000 00080 0000—03 0008005 0050 00:.
00800080 .33 £0002 000000 0000 5N2 00£80>0Z 000w0£ £033 8000000009 00000 05 $088800 000050 0008005 05 6880000 00m .23 .8 80:00 80000000 8
8&8 80000.0 080002 00000 $000800 3 0>.80 =3 0 00380000 00000000 0—0.8 0008005 0 .00 0000000> 00020800 < .33 .3 :080 028 0008 000—00 0000 .0580
08000000 .00 _0>0_ 800% 05 8 8080>08 00200003: 0 00 0000000 00 0—0.3 00080.5 < £3-23 "Nam: 000000003 0000 08000000 800.0 03000 0000 0.08 0008005 a
.8038 08 2 0080 80 .00.. .0088 .0. 88580 a 8.0880 8820080 a

$3.0 0008 000— 0000205 _

.008 0.080 58 0o 888 8 580.080 .08 0.08: 88202 08888 80 880.000 0 508 8 .0088 8002

0080 05 80.0 905000 08008880 .8 000880 .080 000 00000 0000080 0000300 00 20.800 £000 800 08008880 .8 020880 3000 000 0080 .00>030£ 6000000000000
000: .00 0m 005. .0038 0000000 0008 .0050 8 805 $000000 0000 005 .N 030.0. 8 3000000 000 005 80003 008880 00000308 b08000 0000 0000 ma 05. 0

02,8 0880 8 30:82 858800 .800 2 8.50 E ”003809. 85 852 .8002 B 8:83 8030 80 58 .080 080 $0 :00.

:08. 000000. 00.0 03000020 0000 02 Amy 500000000 005 000000 .8800 .3 00000000 000000 00.0 0000 .0000 :83 at 5000000000 0005 000000 .8800 .3 00000000 00000 00.0

106

Discussion
The history and points of comparison have been necessarily selective because analyzing the
unique circumstances surrounding each and every occurrence of American nativism is beyond
the scope of this brief survey. Perceptions of aliens, entitlement, and threat were said to
undergird nativist activities in Chapter 2, but it was necessary to historicize these processes in
order to discern the conditions that help convert these ideas into systems of action. The
contextual qualities of nativism are better understood by examining some of these conditions and
situating perceptions of threat within these contexts.

Two final notes—the variables specified in Table 1 are only juxtaposed with some of the
more notorious examples of American nativism. These correlations do not imply causality, but
are designed to show associative relationships. Secondly, the units of analysis are different. For
example, the 1994 “Save Our State” initiative took place in California, but the data refer to
national contexts. In other words, what is occurring at the regional or local level may have very
little to do with events at the national level (and vice-versa). On a related matter, it must be
remembered that the definition of nativism proposed in the second chapter primarily theorizes
about the perceptions of individuals. While these views are connected to collective processes, it
does not attempt to explain the motives of regional and/or national aggregates. It is possible,
nevertheless, to note a few general observations about the contexts commonly associated with
nativism.

The most egregious examples of nativism occurred during or around wartime. The
emergence and success of the Know Nothings took place on the eve of the Civil War and the

unnecessary intemments occurred during the First and Second World Wars. Such actions are not

107

unique to the United States. During World War II, 2,600 Japanese were “relocated” in British
Columbia, Germans were interned in Canada and Australia—and in Britain——Germans, Italians,
and Austrians were briefly interned by the Churchill administration (Foster and Seitz 1991;
Lafitte 1988: 70-160; Palmer 1982: 2). The kind of nativism which can erupt during wartime
belongs to an enduring tradition of intolerance where national and ethnic populations come to be
seen as potential subversives because their former homeland is at war with their “new home.” In
the course of conflict, some are branded as “fifth columnists,” internal saboteurs who aid their
former homeland through acts of sabotage. Actions unthinkable in times of peace, such as
internment, are not uncommon, but instead are standard protocol (e. g., see Daniels 1993;
Edmonds 1991a; 1991b; Fox 1988; 1990; Harrington 1981; Higham 1992; Palmer 1982; Panayi
1990).

This is not to say, however, that a fear of disloyalty is the only concern of nativists during
wartime or that other factors are not involved. Numerous business associations and labor unions
seemingly tried to capitalize on the wartime hysteria during World War II by urging their
national representatives to “ship” the Japanese “back to Japan,” or at the very least, place them in
concentration camps (Grodzins 1949: 19-61; Okamura 1982). In addition to the alleged material
interests, the Japanese internment seems to have also been spurred by racism and their small,
concentrated numbers (Sowell 1994: 154-55; Daniels 1993; Fox 1990). However, from what I
can discern, a genuine concern about the disloyalty of German Americans seems to have been
the primary motivation for interning 6,300 of them during World War I (e. g., see Ellis and

Panayi 1994; Luebke 1974; Child 1939; Wittke 1936).

108

Unlike wartime nativism, the correlation between economic downturns and nativist
activities is far less clear. Nativist incidents occurred during downswings in the economy (e.g.,
1857-1858, 1882-1885, 1893-1894, 1929-1933, etc.) and upswings in the economy (e.g., 1861-
1865, 1904-1907, 1914-1918, 1982-1990). Interestingly, many of the nativistic events which
occurred during upswings in the economy coincided with domestic and international conflicts.
However, it should be remembered that some of these happenings were confined to specific
locales and that the national context may have had little bearing on these events. Nevertheless, it
is instructive to note that some of the most tranquil time periods in American nativism are
marked by strong economies and relatively low immigration (e.g., 1897-1899, 1951-1980),
which raises one final observation.

Although the relationship between the annual rate of legal immigration and nativism is
difficult to discern (mainly because of the disparate wartime and economic contexts), the number
of nativist activities appears to dwindle during prolonged periods of low immigration (e. g.,
examine 1821-30 and 1940-1990). This is especially the case if the Second World War is
temporarily extracted from the picture. Of course, the annual rate is not only relative in a
proportional sense, but also relative in a sequential sense. The annual rate of legal immigration
for 1990 (3.1) is almost double that of the 1970 annual rate (1.7), even though the annual rate for
each decade is decidedly less than the average annual rate for the years 1821-1990 (4.7).

With the exception of the relationship between economic downturns and nativism, few of
these observations are surprising. Nativism is frequently attributed to increases in immigration,

wartime contexts, and economic downturns (e.g., see Calavita 1996, Ellis and Panayi 1994;

109

Muller 1997). Even a cursory glance at the above juxtapositions demonstrates that the
relationships between such conditions and nativist activities is far from straightforward.

While these factors may precipitate nativism, they do not cause it. A precipitating factor
often gives generalized beliefs immediate substance, but in and of itself, is not the cause of
anything. “It must occur in the context of. . .other determinants” (Smelser 1965: 17). For
example, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was precipitated by Japan’s
victories in the Pacific, particularly at Pearl Harbor (Daniels 1993: 27). However, racism,
historic discrimination, and their small, concentrated numbers on the West Coast made their
internment all the more probable (Daniels 1993; Fox 1990).

Scholars use terms like “economic nativism” and “racial nativism” to highlight the
contextual character of nativism, but at times, this terminology also implies cause and effect, and
tacitly imputes motives to “nativists” (e.g., see F redrickson and Knobel 1981: 842; Hing 1993:
31). The ironic consequence is that ‘nativistic” contexts are often better understood than the very
people who construct meaning and act within them. Chapters 5-7 tackle this deficiency by
examining the worldviews of those who actively shape such contexts through their work and
volunteered time. Before digging into these different visions, however, it is necessary to

examine the methodological approach and perspective of this investigation.

110

CHAPTER 4

NATIVISM: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW AND PREVIEW

The research methods required for a given study are suggested by the properties of the
problem being examined (Mills 1959: 128). This investigation seeks to answer three
central, interrelated questions: What is American nativism? Under what conditions does
heightened nativist activity occur? and What does immigration mean to those involved in
immigration reform? The definition of nativism provided in chapter two offers an answer
to the first question. The methods used to arrive at this interpretation were intentionally
omitted because their validation requires a comprehension of the overall research design,

which is described below.

Research Design
The research methods described below are appropriate for collecting the kinds of data
needed for discerning how and why certain groups in the United States come to define
others as “aliens” and develop exclusionary practices to limit their entrance into the
nation-state or participation in certain areas of “native privilege” (see Chapter 2 for
details). Multiple research methods were used to examine the conditions under which
heightened nativist activity occurs and understand why certain individuals become
collectively involved in organized efforts to reform current immigration policy.
Qualitative methods are critical for probing the complex mixture of motives and interests
behind such actions, and the contexts in which they are embedded. Rather than being the
means of research, the categories developed by quantitative researchers, and the

conditions stressed by historians and nativism scholars, were the object (along with those

111

themes that emerged in the course of field work) of this research project (cf. McCracken
1 98 8).

By synthesizing historical accounts of immigrant reception, I identify the
constitutive elements of nativist episodes in Chapter 3 and develop criteria for measuring
and comparing the multifarious reactions confronted by immigrants and their progeny.
These findings were incorporated into the definition of nativism introduced in the second
chapter. This historical—comparative research responds to the second question by
examining the conditions typically associated with nativist activities. Understanding the
renewed interest in reducing immigration levels and abridging the “rights” of immigrants
already living in the United States, however, requires data on the people and
organizations promoting and opposing such changes. Interviews with expansionists and
restrictionists, along with a content analysis of immigration reform agency documents
and archives, furthers our understanding of what immigration means to immigration
activists and the roles they play in shaping public policy and opinion. In so doing, an
answer to the third and final research question is advanced. The collected data are
analyzed in order to develop a conceptual scheme for examining the different discourses,
beliefs, and behaviors of immigration activists, and will be compared to dominant
perspectives on nativism and intergroup hostility in the final chapter. Many of these
observations influenced the arguments set forth in Chapter 2, but a more comprehensive

synthesis is presented in Chapter 7.

Historical-Comparative Research and Analysis
A selective history of American nativism is subdivided into three nativist eras. Special

attention is given to the plethora of interests and ideologies seemingly present during

112

each time period. This research does not systematically analyze every nativist event in
U.S. history, but identifies the constitutive properties of nativism. It unveils the patterns
and attendant conditions of nativism. Additionally, this research was used to develop a
versatile framework of concepts suited to the complexities and essence of American
nativism, as outlined in Chapter 2. This analysis was informed by—above all else—a
meticulous dissection of secondary sources (e.g., Almaguer 1994; Bennett 1995; Fuchs
1990; Gould 1981; Higham 1992; Leonard and Parmet 1971; Pedraza and Rumbaut
1996)

One could argue a tautology has been constructed by providing a definition of
nativism at the outset. Identifying the constitutive properties of nativist events, those
elements common to most nativist events, is one of the main objectives of chapter four.
One might contend that specifying these components beforehand is the equivalent of a
tautological warm up. Any phenomenon matching my pre-established criteria would be,
by definition, nativistic. The definition proposed in chapter two, however, is based on
historical-comparative research and interviews. My synthesis of historical accounts, and
interviews with expansionists and restrictionists, allowed me to propose a working

definition of nativism which can be assessed throughout the entire dissertation.

In-depth Interviews
Forty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with immigration “activists” and
“allies.” Activists were defined as those individuals who regularly devoted, at one time or

another, thirty1 or more hours a week to immigration reform (i.e., intentional actions

 

' The idea to define activists as a function of time committed to immigration reform was gleaned from
Kristin Luker’s study of pro-life and pro-choice activists. Her minimum time requirements for defining
pro-life and pro-choice activists were 10 and 5 hours of “activity” per week, respectively (1985: 250). The

113

designed to produce, or prevent, change in current immigration and immigrant realities)
by participating in organizations aspiring to mold such conditions. Allies primarily
contribute to immigration reform, not by participating in such organizations, but by virtue
of their professions. The job requirements of policy makers, immigration officials,
congressional staff, and researchers involve them in the maintenance and transformation
of immigration policy. Similar to the dilemmas faced by professionals in bilingual
education (Crawford 1992: 227), the adversarial climate surrounding immigration can
pressure researchers and other professionals to operate like politicians and carefully
consider the political implications of their work. Although these categories are not
mutually exclusive, interviewing activists and allies (i.e., those most heavily involved in
immigration reform) introduces us to the meanings and interests they attach to
immigration and consequently, to some of the more influential beliefs and values shaping
the debate. This approach approximates the methodology of Kristin Luker (1985), whose
interviews with pro-life and pro-choice activists helped her to relate their conflicting
moral positions to divergent worldviews and experiences.

The 46 interviews were completed between March 1997 and June 1998. Of those
forty-six, three were conducted with individuals previously interviewed, as the expertise
of these respondents proved indispensable for piecing together the politics of immigration
reform. The conglomerate of immigration/immigrant-related agencies in the United
States is very large, but the actual number of activists is quite small compared to the
number of allies (see definitions above). The decision to conduct forty-six interviews

with activists and allies was based on logistical considerations. There are approximately

 

decision to increase the number of hours was made on the assumption that people devoting a minimum of
thirty hours a week to immigration reform were more likely to have seriously thought about immigration

114

twenty-five national activist organizations currently involved in immigration reform (see
Figure 3) and some of these agencies only consist of three or four “employees.” This
limited the potential pool of eligible activists, particularly the number of activists. Of the
forty-three interviewees, twenty-four immigration activists and eighteen immigration
allies were interviewed.

Research Sample Characteristics As indicated earlier, meaning-related inquires
guided decisions of sample and site selection. Because immigration worldviews and the
policy-making process were identified as having the maximum potential to provide
relevant and rich data on the topics of nativism and immigration reform, respondents
were selected on the basis of their association and familiarity with these matters. Some
interviewees were initially selected by me, although most respondents were incorporated
into the study through a snowball sampling procedure.

Demographic data on the activists and allies are arranged in Table 2. The
presentation of individual-level data could jeopardize the guarantee of confidentiality and

are therefore not displayed.

 

reform, thereby exposing me to respondents for whom the issue is especially salient.

llS

Table 2 Research Sample Attributes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activists Allies Expansionists Restrictionists
20-30: 5 20—30: 0 20-30: 3 20-30: 2
31-40: 7 31-40: 8 31-40: 11 31-40: 4
Age rangell 41-50: 9 41-50: 4 41-50: 7 41-50: 6
51-60: 1 51-60: 7 51-60: 8 51-60: 0
61-80: 2 61-80: 0 61-80: 0 61-80: 2
Total: 24 Total: 19 Total: 29 Total: 14
Gender Female: 5 Female: 7 Female: 11 Female: 1
Male: 19 Male: 12 Male: 18 Male: 13
Native-born or Native: 20 Native: 17 Native: 25 Native: 12
Foreign-bornb Foreign: 3 Foreign: 3 Foreign: 4 Foreign: 2
t Asian: 1 Asian: 1 Asian: 2 Asian: 0
Race/ Ethnicity° Hispanic: 1 Hispanic: 3 Hispanic: 3 Hispanic: 1
White: 22 White: 15 White: 24 White: 13
BA: 8 BA: 4 BA: 7 BA: 5
Educational Level“ MA: 7 MA: 9 MA: 11 MA: 5
Ph.D.: 8 Ph.D.: 6 Ph.D.: 10 Ph.D.: 4
C/R: 4 C/R: 0 C/R: 1 C/R: 3
Political Persuasion‘ UD: 3 L/D: 10 W: 11 L/D: 2
Libertarian: 4 Libertarian: 0 Libertarian: 4 Libertarian: 0
Other: 12 Other: 10 Other: 13 Other: 9

 

 

 

a. Approximate age at time of interview.

b. Of the foreign-born, two were born as American citizens, both of whom were restrictionists.

c. Members of other racial/ethnic groups were not interviewed (see next two paragraphs and Chapter 7).
d. Educational level represents only highest degree completed. “PhD.” includes law and medical degrees.

e. Political persuasion gauged by respondent’s self-description. Symbols: C/R (Conservative and/or Republican), L/D

(Liberal and/or Democrat). “Libertarian” was sometimes used in conjunction with other descriptors, such as

“conservative” or “Democrat.” These individuals were categorized as libertarian. “Other” represents various labels,
such as “moderate,” “independent,” “centrist,” “progressive,” and “supporter of human rights.” It also represents those

who declined to answer and those who were not asked.

116

 

The interview sample primarily consists of highly educated white men. Two-thirds of the
respondents took an expansionist position on immigration, although some (particularly
allies) were more interested in maintaining current policies, rather than expanding upon
them. Of the 43 interviewees, 14 had earned doctoral-level degrees (J .D., M.D., Ph.D.,
etc.), 16 secured masters-level degrees (Masters of Social Work), 12 received bachelors
degrees, and only one person had yet to receive a bachelor’s degree, although he had
completed some college coursework. Only 12 of the interviewees were women, and of
those 12, only 5 were activists. The sample was overwhelmingly native-born, and of the 6
foreign-born individuals, 2 were born as American citizens, both of whom were
restrictionists.

As stated earlier, the sample was not randomly generated, but formed through
calculated choices and respondent referrals. Some interviewees were selected because of
their relative prominence or extensive knowledge, but most were drawn in via a snowball
sample. Given the exploratory nature of the research, the focus on immigration reform,
and absence of an advocate sampling frame, a purposive sample was required. Because
the respondents were not randomly selected, generalizations in Chapters 5-7 refer only to
those people interviewed for the study. Questions of representation are difficult, if not
impossible, to answer. However, akin to Kristin Luker’s study of abortion activists in
California (1985: 254), it seems that the above sample is fairly representative of national
activists, given the immense overlap in themes and referrals. This tentative conclusion
does not apply to national representatives or allies. I suspect that had more interviews
been conducted at the local level, more women and Afiican Americans would have been

interviewed. In addition to structured racial and gender relations, Sylvia Walby (1996)

117

suggests that women’s political activities are usually “less nationalist” and more local
than those of men.

Interview Settings and Recruitment Procedures Efforts at immigration reform
are largely organized by a complex of active lobbies in the nation’s capital. Because
immigration is principally a federal responsibility, many of these organizations are
concentrated in Washington DC. for the express purpose of shaping the national debate
on immigration and influencing immigration policy. Hence, the Washington DC. area
provided an excellent setting for examining some of the key organizations promoting or
opposing changes in current immigration and immigrant policies and programs. In order
to comprehend the multiple ideas and discourses adopted by these groups, I began to
develop an inventory of organizations active in immigration reform by consulting
immigration specialists and asking some of the directors of these designated associations
to identify people and organizations they viewed as “key players” in the politics of
immigration reform. A listing of these groups, and their general positions on

immigration reform, are depicted in Figure 3.

118

 

Restrictionist
Organizations

 

 

 

Environmental-Population
Lobby/Awareness
- Carrying Capacity Network
- Negative Population Growth
- Population-Environment

Balance
- Zero Population Growth

Environmental-Cultural
Lobby/Awareness
0 American Immigration
Control Foundation
- Federation for American
Immigration Reform
. U.S. Border Control

- U.S. English

Research/Publications
- Center for Immigration
Studies
- The Social Contract Press
(Umbrella Organization:
U.S. Inc.)

 

 

Nonpartisan/Bipartisan
Organizations and Federal
Government

 

 

Federal Government and
Government-related
- U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform
- Senate Immigration
Subcommittee
- House Immigration
Subcommittee
. Immigration and
Naturalization Service
- Department of Labor
- Congressional Research
Service

[1

IMMGRATION
AND
INIMIGRANT
POLICIES

ll

Education/Research
- Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace,
lntemational Migration
Program
- Lewis Center for Regional
Policy Studies (UCLA)
- New School for Social
Research / Urban Institute
0 The Center for Migration
Studies

- Social Science Research
Council

- The Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute

 

<3:

 

 

 

~Population Reference Bureau
- Population Resource Center

 

Expansionist
Organizations

 

 

 

General Immigration
Advocacy
- National Immigration
Forum
- Frank Swartz and

Associates

Libertarian Think Tanks
0 Cato Institute

- Center for Equal
Opportunity

Business Lobbyists
- American Business for
Legal Immigration
- American Council on
International Personnel
- National Association of

Manufacturers
- National Federation of

Businesses

Ethnic Lobbies
. National Council of La Raza
. Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund
- Organization of Chinese
Americans
0 Council of Jewish
Federations

Religious Lobbies
. US Catholic Conference

- American Jewish
Committee

Legal Lobbies
- American Immigration
Lawyers Association

Figure 3 Field of Primary Organizations Shaping National Immigration Reform Efforts

119

Many of the respondents were also asked, near the end of the interview, if they
would recommend someone who might consider talking to me about some of the very
same issues we had just discussed. Many of them suggested two or three individuals, and
one interviewee even arranged an informal dinner to introduce me to other activists. A
few of the respondents, however, first called potential candidates to see if they were
willing to talk with me and later provided me with their names and phone numbers. By
the thirty-fifth interview, the interviewees usually recommended two or three people I
had already spoken with, and in some cases, their suggestions read like a completed
checklist. While I did not exhaust the entire population of immigration advocates and
allies, I did interview, gauging by the interviewee’s referrals, some of the most prominent
and influential activists. In all, 61% of the interviewees currently work, or worked for,
the organizations listed in Figure 3. All of the respondents were selected through this
snowball sample procedure on the basis of their relation to the problem areas being
investigated.

This procedure contains one exception, however. The majority of “activist”
interviews were conducted in the Washington DC. area, but because interviews were
also conducted with “allies” (those people who contribute to immigration reform by
virtue of their occupations), some interviews were conducted outside of this locale.
Thirteen interviews were conducted in the Midwest, primarily at regional conferences
and local offices. Comparing the interviews of those who deliberately chose to devote
thirty or more hours a week to immigration reform with those whose professions
involved them by necessity (regardless of their own beliefs about the issue) not only

diversified the sample, but also allowed me to examine how ideas and vocabularies of

120

motive (Mills 1940) are influenced by one’s setting and participation (i.e., from
occupational duties to outright activism) in immigration reform.

Interview Format Eight of the interviews were conducted over the phone
because of distance and scheduling changes. To my surprise, some of the most
transparent and informative interviews were achieved over the phone. Incidentally, the
most candid discussion with respect to race and culture took place during my first phone
interview. The other thirty-eight interviews were conducted in-person, and usually in the
interviewees’ offices, but on a few occasions, at a conference or restaurant. The
interviews—both face-to-face and on the phone—lasted anywhere between thirty minutes
and three hours, but the average interview lasted approximately sixty to ninety minutes.

At the beginning of every interview I informed the respondents that their
responses would be kept confidential and I would do everything I could to guarantee their
confidentiality.2 I also asked for their permission to record the interview. To ensure that
the respondents felt no obligation or coercion to comply with any of my requests, I
emphasized that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could end the
interview at any time. All of this was spelled out on the consent form, which was signed
before the interview began (see Appendix 1).

By the second interview, the interview schedule (see Appendix 2) was quickly
pared down to a short battery of demographic queries and series of questions concerning
their respective professions, political persuasions, views on U.S. immigration and

immigrant policy, values, nativism, motives and interests. Some of the interviewees,

 

2 The respondent’s statements and attributes are disguised as much as possible, but because I am interested
in public actions and because a number of these individuals are undertaking activities to influence public
policy and opinion, I was very careful to avoid quotes and references (in chapters 5-7) which might
jeopardize the subjects’ confidentiality.

121

however, were hesitant to share their opinions without first knowing mine. I initially
tried to sidestep such questions by indicating my interest in their perspectives, but more
often than not, this proved insufficient, and I briefly shared some of my thoughts on
immigration. I usually indicated, in one minute or less, that refugee policy was especially
important to me and that numerical limits on legal and illegal immigration were
necessary, but difficult to establish in one’s mind. This proved satisfactory, as perhaps
my own ambivalence on—and openness to—these issues encouraged the respondents to
freely express their opinions. This, along with promise of confidentiality, encouraged
forthright discussions.

Comparing the interviews of immigration activists and allies illuminates key
differences dividing opponents and proponents of immigration restriction. Analyzing the
meanings they associate with immigration contributes to our understanding of how group
boundaries (native, alien, etc.) are drawn and redrawn, and highlight the multiple
discourses used by coalitions to protect or promote the interests they have in maintaining
or challenging the status-quo. Salient themes in the debate, however, were also identified
by analyzing the public and private documents provided by the organizations and

interviewees.

Collection and Analysis of Written and Visual Records

The interview data were supplemented with an analysis of public relations materials
provided by the interviewees and/or their respective organizations. Informational videos,
pamphlets, books, articles, research findings, press releases, editorials, and published
interviews were examined for the arguments and imagery contained therein. In all, over

one hundred and fifiy public relations “texts” were examined. Field notes were also

122

taken at three immigration-related conferences, which provided spontaneous and equally
rich “texts” for data analysis.

Emerging themes were recorded and developed into a preliminary list of
questions regarding: the history of the expansionist and restrictionist organizations, their
role in immigration reform, and their financial and intellectual support. Special attention
was paid to the natural and social scientists used by the activists in their debates and
respective literatures. My first glimpse into their worldviews came, in fact, from their
quotes and public relations materials.

Archived documents of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
arguably the preeminent restrictionist organization in the U.S., were also reviewed and
analyzed.3 This data contains written accounts of the associations’ official views and
documents many of their activities, beginning in the early 19808. Over two hundred
press releases issued between 1987 and 1996 were examined. The press releases
consisted primarily of legislative updates, formal positions on pending and passed
legislation, summaries of “Borderline” (a television program hosted by the current
Executive Director of FAIR, Dan Stein), fact sheets, research reports and commentary,
and rebuttals to allegations advanced by expansionist agencies. One set of documents

studied, but apparently not included in the collection, is FAIR’s “Tenth Anniversary Oral

 

3 These documents are on deposit at George Washington University’s Gelman library. This collection is
referenced only by a preliminary finding aid and has not undergone formal archival processing. Because
there are sixty-three boxes of documents and videos, it is impossible to conduct a quick, systematic search
for specific materials, but of the boxes I inspected, 1 found numbers 1, 10, 26, and 27 to be the most
informative and organized. I would like to thank Cheryl Chouiniere, the manuscripts librarian at the
Gelman library, for her assistance.

123

History Project.” This project contains interviews with five of FAIR’s original board
members and executives and supplied information not contained elsewhere.4

Lastly, selected back issues of the Social Contract, “the restrictionist movement’s
house magazine” as Peter Brimelow calls it (1996: 298), were also examined. The
articles and book advertisements in the magazine deepened my understanding of the
positions taken by restrictionists and expansionists and illuminated blank spaces in my
own thinking. Most of these “texts”—public relations materials, FAIR documents, and
Social Contract issues—were gathered prior to the fifieenth interview and were later used

to construct additional interview questions, and hone those already developed.

Data Analysis
The preceding discussion alluded to a general research philosophy and methodology, but
did not specify my initial expectations or explain my position on interviewing people
associated with immigration reform. These particulars undoubtedly influenced the

structure and direction of my analysis and require some elaboration.

Initial expectations

A distaste for intolerance and untested assumptions, and appetite for understanding and
balance, necessitated interviews with immigration activists. First, little is known about
the individuals who influence public policy and American attitudes toward immigration
and immigrants. Although researchers have used interviews to examine a wide range of
immigration-related phenomena, such as ethnic identity, language politics, and relations

between the native- and foreign-born (e.g., see Waters 1990; Crawford 1992; Portes and

 

‘ The 456 page single-spaced transcriptions are only available, to the best of my knowledge, at FAIR’s
headquarters in Washington DC.

124

Stepick 1993), they have not systematically examined the worldviews of immigration
activists, although LeMay (1994) interviewed “allies” (my term) for their expertise on the
legislative process.

Secondly, some recent analyses have been decidedly ignorant and partial. For
example, there is the widely held, but untested assumption in the nativism literature that
proponents of restricting immigration disguise their “real” motives (e. g., racism) with
other, more acceptable arguments (e.g., immigration depresses the wages of the working
poor). Scholars often characterize these arguments as “covers” or “surrogates” for other
motives (e.g., see Crawford 1992). Johnson’s (1997) analysis typifies this practice:

. . .modern restrictionists regularly deny that race is the reason for their dismay with
immigration. They instead employ other non-race-based arguments—that too
many people are immigrating to the United States, that immigrants (particularly
“illegal aliens”) take jobs from U.S. citizens, especially the poor and minorities,
that “they” overconsurne public benefits and adversely affect already-strapped state
and local government budgets, that “they” contribute to the crime problem, and that
“they” cause interethnic conflict and refuse to assimilate. Some restrictionist
arguments approach the boundaries of racism, such as claims that today’s
immigrants speak languages other than English, which is “un-American,” and that
the new immigrants come from different, “uh-American” cultures (Johnson 1997:
174, italics added).
Because organizations cannot use race-based arguments if they hope to secure legislative
and public support, Johnson’s skepticism is understandable. But such assumptions are
unwarranted. Johnson (1997) has no way of knowing what “motivates” restrictionists
without first developing a study to research their rationales.
Restrictionists also irnpute motives. Lutton and Tanton contend that immigration

lawyers and government bureaucrats welcome the influx of immigrants because they

have an economic stake in maintaining a steady stream of new arrivals (1994: 139-146).

125

These allegations also make sense—most people are concerned about their jobs—but
again, such analyses are heavy on insinuation and light on data.

I examined the interviews of immigration advocates in terms of their
“vocabularies of motive” (Mills 1940), but was much more cautious in my analysis.
Mills (1940) would likely argue that we can never know what really motivated an
individual to do something at a given point in time. We cannot peep behind explanations
and opinions (verbalized motives) and look for the supposedly “real attitude or motive” at
work inside of an individual. “When we ask for the ‘real motive’ rather than the
‘rationalization,’ all we can be meaningfully asking for is the controlling speech form
which was incipiently or overtly present in the performed act or series of acts” (Mills
1940: 910).

This distinction between interest as an impetus and interest as a vocabulary is
necessary if we are to keep the influence of ideas and usage of ideas analytically separate.
In so doing, we avoid the assumption that people’s explanations for their behaviors are
the causes of it. Clearly, the forces “behind” an action and the ensuing explanations that
are used to justify it are not always the same. Motives frequently arise, not fiom within
individuals, “but fi'om the situation in which individuals find themselves...” (1940: 906).

This is not to say I approached the study of nativism and immigration reform with
a blank slate. I had observed a variety of phenomena and held a number of assumptions.
It appeared that the vocabularies of motives typically used by expansionists and
restrictionists could be captured by one of four rationales. Expansionists seemed to
defend their position (or privileges) by referring to (1) free market principles, (2)

economic and diversity “needs,” (3) human rights, and (4) specific ethnic groups.

126

Restrictionists seemed to defend their position (or privileges) by referring to (1)
economic “needs,” (2) American culture, (3) native-born racial-ethnic groups, and (4)
personal and national security.

With reference to the immigration advocates themselves, I suspected that their
views were largely shaped by ethnicity, experiences with immigration and immigrants (or
lack thereof), feelings about (and perceptions of) the United States as a nation and its role
in the world, economic interests (from personal to national), and various ideological and
religious perspectives. These assumptions allowed me to organize my analysis from the
very start, but—in hindsight—were incomplete and somewhat misplaced. The interviews

examined in Chapters 5-7 will aptly demonstrate this observation.

A Perspective on Interviewing Immigration Advocates and Allies

The works of Mills (1940) and Goffrnan (1959) are particularly sensitive to some of the
dilemmas faced by social researchers. Trying to understand social phenomena by relying
on a respondent’s words and appearances can be a risky business, but we are left with
few options since this is all we really have. The purpose of this research is, in part, to
come to terms with these limitations and to suggest a perspective and method that makes
the best of this quandary.

Mills (1940) argued that “vocabularies of motive” accompany certain behaviors
and that individuals use them to legitimate their conduct. Motives are not the cause of
behavior, but the explanation of it. “Rather than fixed elements ‘in’ an individual,
motives are the terms with which interpretation of conduct by social actors proceeds”
(1940: 904, italics in original). Motives are not explanations for behavior, but are

themselves in need of explanation since they are usually verbalized only when certain

127

forms of behavior are questioned. Individuals use learned vocabularies of motive to
comprehend situations and anticipate the questioning of their conduct (1940: 905-06).
“There is no need to invoke ‘psychological’ terms like ‘desire’ or ‘wish’ as explanatory,
since they themselves must be explained socially...Institutionally different situations have
different vocabularies of motive appropriate to their respective behaviors” (1940: 906,
italics in original). The objective here is to consider the implications of using this
perspective for analytic purposes and for organizing interviews with participants in
immigration reform.

Nativism and Vocabularies of Motive In The Age of Migration, Castles and
Miller (1993) lamented the disunion of research immigration and ethnic diversity. To
develop linkages they urged that the migratory process be analyzed in its totality.
Although this has been accomplished by some scholars (cf. Portes and Rumbaut 1996;
Pedraza and Rumbaut 1995; Massey 1993, 1995), motives continue to be an understudied
topic in both sets of literature (Gold 1997). Gold’s recent examination of Israeli motives
for emigrating to the United States begins to address this omission.

Gold observes that many of the categories and concepts used to understand
immigration, such as “refugee” and “economic immigrants,” are generally interpreted in
light of migrant’s motives. Instead of scrutinizing these motives, they are often assumed
by researchers and attributed to migrants. In some cases there is sufficient reason to
assume a population’s motives for migrating (as in the case of Cambodian refugees), but
more caution is warranted when considering other groups, such as Jewish Israelis. Their
“comments [on their presence in the U.S.] bear little correspondence with the economic

and political motives referred to in most literature on international migration” (1997:

128

411). Analyzing Israelis’ comments from the perspective of transnationalism allowed
Gold to link their explanations to the multiple contexts and networks bearing on their
various decisions and explanations.

Gold examines the vocabularies of motives used by immigrants to explain their
decisions to migrate, but what about the vocabularies of “natives” who explain their
decisions to, in the terminology of Woldemikael (1987), accommodate newcomers or
assert their dominance? Although adapting to a new environment is a social process
requiring both the native- and foreign-born to decide how much they are willing to
change (Woldemikael 1987), it is the judgments of immigration advocates that concern
us here. What matters is motives. “When immigration policies are reviewed, the final
judgment depends upon what motivates voters and policy makers, who often hold
different conceptions of national self-interest” (Light 1996: 62, italics added).
Investigating these motives requires that one look beyond individuals and their respective
contexts to see how linguistic behavior fulfills “ascertainable functions in delimited
societal situations” (Mills 1940: 904).

Nativism scholars have struggled with the question of motives. The motives of
racists and nativists are frequently assumed (e.g., see Wellman 1994; Crawford 1992).
Terms like “economic nativism” and “racial nativism” are often used by scholars to
highlight the contextual character of nativism, but sometimes implicitly double as
sociological analysis. While these concepts underscore the significance of context and
the tendency of nativism to intersect with other processes (such as racism), they tell us
little about the worldviews of “nativists,” or more generally, of immigration advocates.

Interviews with expansionists and restrictionists were needed in order to understand their

129

different perceptions and justifications. When researchers rely on context to explain the
motives of nativists, they often see causation in a correlation and leave little room for the
diversity of interests and vocabularies within each restrictionist phase.

The passing of California’s Proposition 187 aptly demonstrates this. The drive to
exclude “illegal aliens” from tax supported benefits developed within the context of a
prolonged recession. Some reporters and researchers assumed that the economic slump
supplied nativists with the necessary motives (cf. Johnson 1995). But not all proponents
of the initiative were solely concerned about the fiscal impacts of immigration. Some of
the SOS. supporters referred to the hygiene of immigrants and alluded to an “alien”
conspiracy (Kadetsky 1994: 418-420). While the recession may have contributed to their
positions, the above comments illustrate how California’s sagging economy was not their
only concern. (See Chapter 2 for details.)

Clearly, the motives of nativists will vary from one context to the next and also
within each context. Determining when nativism is the primary organizing principle in
ethnic conflict is necessary for developing a program that can minimize its occurrence.
An overreliance on context to explain the motives of nativists misdirects such efforts by
assuming that nativists are nativistic for the same reason. Nativistic contexts are better
understood than the nativists who construct meaning and act within them. Rather than
treating them separately, our aim should be to delimit the contexts under which motives
are declared and attributed.

The Interview Goffrnan’s (1959) drarnaturgical perspective is especially
relevant when examining vocabularies of motives. Like Mills (1940), Goffman stressed

that people are concerned with the appearance and acceptance of their behavior.

130

Individuals who cooperate to project a definition of a situation are called “teams,” and
manage their impressions so that they will be accepted, or more precisely, so that their
“performances” will be.5 Goffman likens social encounters to a series of performances
where teams attempt to foster a certain image through the art of impression management.
These performances are susceptible to a variety of disruptions which have the potential to
discredit a team’s performance. Performances are usually designed to “express the
characteristics of the task that is performed and not the characteristics of the performer”
(p. 77). Instead of trying to reach certain ends by acceptable means, performers can
manage the impression that they are realizing their objectives by acceptable means (p.
251)

Teams manage their impressions for the benefit of audiences. Their concern with
the presented expressions is tied to their concern with the audience’s opinion of them. To
paraphrase William James, for every group about whose opinion we care, we have a
different self (Goffinan 1959: 48-49). This creates a multitude of standards by which a
team and their actions can be judged.

In their capacity as performers, individuals will be concerned with maintaining the
impression that they are living up to the many standards by which they and their
products are judged. Because these standards are so numerous and so pervasive,
the individuals who are performers dwell more than we might think in a moral
world. But, qua performers, individuals are not concerned with the moral issue of
realizing these standards, but with the amoral issue of engineering a convincing
impression that these standards are being realized. Our activity, then, is largely
concerned with moral matters, but as performers we do not have a moral concern
with them. As performers we are merchants of morality...To use a different
imagery, the very obligation and profitability of appearing always in a steady moral

light, of being a socialized character, forces one to be the sort of person who is
practiced in the ways of the stage (1959: 251).

 

5 A performer and an audience constitutes a team, but an individual can also be a team. Individuals can be
an audience to their own performance or can think about absent audiences, such as reference groups. Like
teams of two or more, they also try to have their performances accepted, albeit by a non-present audience
(1959: 79-82, 104).

131

Goffinan essentially argues that people hide or underplay those actions and motives
which violate an audience’s moral standards (pp. 48-49). These arguments are highly
compatible with the basic thrust of Mills’ (1940) position.

Because vocabularies of motive arise in certain contexts for the purpose of
making one’s actions appear acceptable, we can see these vocabularies as one aspect of
impression management. Goffrnan argues that the self is not the cause of a scene that
comes off, but the product of it (p. 253). “In analyzing the self then we are drawn from
its possessor, from the person who will profit or lose most by it, for he and his body
merely provide the peg on which something of a collaborative manufacture will be hung
for a time” (p. 253). Similarly, Mills argues that vocabularies of motive are not the cause
of behavior, but the legitimation of it. “As a word, a motive tends to be one which is to
the actor and the other members of a situation an unquestioned answer to questions
concerning social and lingual conduct” (1940: 907, italics in original). Given this
perspective, how then should interviews with immigration advocates proceed and what
can we know?

It is important to remember that performances are designed, to varying degrees, to
achieve a “veneer of consensus” where both the team and audience conceal their own
wants “behind statements which assert values to which everyone present feels obliged to
give lip service” (Goffrnan 1959: 10). The audience often helps performers to save their
own routine by employing a number of protective practices, such as by readily accepting
an excuse for a performance-threatening exhibition (pp. 229-31). These observations are
familiar to social scientists who often reflect on their roles in the research process,

particularly in interviews and participant observation. An interview designed to obtain a

132

respondent’s vocabularies of motives in various situations is asking for his or her view of
the world in a context fraught with dramaturgical dangers. Instead of being a liability,
this situation is desirable (one could even say a requirement) because this is where
vocabularies of motives are typically utilized.

Another issue concerning the researcher is the analysis of the interview.
Sociologists are accustomed to framing vocabularies of motives with sociological
concepts and theories, but these can, at times, impede our understanding of certain
circumstances. “The languages of situations as given must be considered a valuable
portion of the data to be interpreted and related to their conditions. To simplify these
vocabularies of motive into socially abstracted terminology is to destroy the legitimate
use of motive in the explanation of social actions” (Mills 1940: 913). This is particularly
easy to do when analyzing the interviews of people with whom we disagree.

In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman argues that racist beliefs surface,
not so much in the form of outright prejudice, but in beliefs that are “culturally
sanctioned, rational responses to struggles over scarce resources; that they are sentiments
which, regardless of intentions, defend the advantages that whites gain from the presence
of blacks in America” (1994: 29, italics added). He goes on to demonstrate that whites
defend their racial privileges and explain their opposition to institutional change in ways
“that do not explicitly contradict egalitarian ideals” (p. 53, italics in original). In order to
justify their privileged position, all white Americans have learned to do this (pp. 60-61).
Although Wellman did not begin with the notion that whites developed strategies for
maintaining privilege (p. 76), his analysis is largely one of a vocabulary of motives used

by whites to defend the racial status quo in the context of interviews.

133

Focusing on the consequences (and not the intentions) of whites allowed Wellman
to demonstrate the social nature of motives. But one has to wonder—would his analysis
have emerged if it were not for the dominant vocabulary of motives used by sociologists?
Could it be that the attribution of “negative” motives to people with whom we disagree is
more a product of not what is said, but who it is said by? “Sometimes when we ask
whether a fostered impression is true or false we really mean to ask whether or not the
performer is authorized to give the performance in question, and are not primarily
concerned with the actual performance itself” (Goffrnan 1959: 59). Is Wellrnan’s
analysis derived more from his assessment of whites’ performances than it is from the
actual interviews?

Wellman observes that each respondent’s position was “formulated in very
acceptable, almost liberal, American terms,” but that all of their solutions required little
or no social change (1994: 208-209). Obviously, it would be a great mistake to only
focus on what is said and to ignore who said it. It is the job of the sociologist to connect
a person’s perceptions with their position in social space (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:
11). This challenge, however, becomes increasingly difficult when sociologists fail to
consider why some vocabularies of motives are more acceptable than others. This
oversight becomes especially problematic when they are attentive to the vocabularies
used by their respondents but not themselves.

Individualistic, sexual, hedonistic, and pecuniary vocabularies of motives are
apparently now dominant in many sectors of twentieth-century America. Under
such an ethos, verbalization of alternative conduct in these terms is least likely to
be challenged among dominant groups...A medieval monk writes that he gave food
to a poor but pretty woman because it was “for the glory of God and the eternal
salvation of his soul.” Why do we tend to question him and impute sexual

motives? Because sex is an influential and widespread motive in our society and
time. Religious vocabularies of explanation are now on the wane. In a society in

134

which religious motives have been debunked on rather wide scale, certain thinkers
are skeptical of those who ubiquitously proclaim them (Mills 1940: 910).

The use of certain vocabularies makes it very easy for researchers to impute motives to
their respondents, especially those that are dominant, those which are “the least likely to
be challenged.” But Mills (1940) is not only talking about the vocabularies of
respondents. He is also referring to the vocabularies used by those who analyze the
statements and actions of others, as indicated by his question, “Why do we tend to
question him and impute sexual motives?”

I would argue that the motives of white restrictionists are more suspect than not
when issues of race and immigration are being considered. I only suggest that this is the
case right now and not that these suspicions are unwarranted. Perhaps this point can be
illustrated by the example of the late Barbara Jordan, former chairperson of the U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform. A former congresswoman from Texas, Jordan
made her position quite clear on illegal immigrants: “Illegal aliens don’t have the right to
be here...They broke the law to get here. They never intended to become a part of our
social community and they are not entitled to benefit” (Rosenthal 1994). Had this
statement been made by a white person, he or she could potentially be accused of not
only being nativistic, but racist as well since illegal immigrants and Mexican nationals
are synonymous in the minds of many Americans. For many Americans, 1 would venture
to say that Jordan would not be suspected of couching her racist sentiments in the
motives of legality by virtue of her status as an Afiican American. But even if she were
to be branded “nativist,” her position would still be defensible because she is speaking,
symbolically at least, on behalf of an oppressed group. Whether or not Jordan’s

explanation “truly” matches her reasoning at the time she first concluded that

135

“immigrants don’t have the right to be here” is difficult to assess without having
interviewed her.

The theories and concepts we encounter as sociologists help us to frame people’s
vocabularies of motive in terms that may say more about the theories we use than about
the people we are interested in understanding. Mills observation about practitioners of
psychoanalysis is applicable to most of our theories. “To converted individuals who have
become accustomed to the psychoanalytic terminology of motives, all others seem self-
deceptive” (1940: 912). Sometimes “economic immigrants” and “racial nativism” are the
appropriate concepts to use, but sometimes they are not, and we can only determine when
this is the case by observing how people explain their behavior in response to the
questioning of their conduct.

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between racism and nativism.
Both terms are used interchangeably to described restrictionist efforts or are combined
into the term “racial nativism.” But why is this? Part of the reason, of course, is that
today’s immigrants are predominantly non-white. It was much easier to distinguish
between racism and nativism at the turn of the century when the majority of incoming
immigrants were phenotypically white.‘S People “opposed” to immigration or immigrants
were simply nativists, but now that today’s immigrants are mostly non-white, it is
becoming harder to determine which process/attitude is primary. This brings us to the
important question of “what can we know?” and the challenge of seeking that

information.

 

" The Irish and Italians were not initially thought of as being “white” by some native-born Americans (cf.
lgnatiev 1995; Alba 1996). This is something that needs to be considered when comparing the intersection
of racism and nativism at the turn of the century with today’s nativist movements.

136

Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive as an Approach Goffman

(1959) emphasized that the information we need in order to comprehend situations is
generally unattainable.

When one individual enters the presence of others, he will want to discover the

facts of the situation...To uncover fully the factual nature of the situation, it would

be necessary for the individual to know all the relevant social data about the

others...Full information of this order is rarely available; in its absence, the

individual tends to employ substitutes—cues, tests, hints, expressive gestures,

status symbols, etc—as predictive devices. In short, since the reality that the

individual is concerned with is unperceivable at the moment, appearances must be

relied upon in its stead. And, paradoxically, the more the individual is concerned

with the reality that is not available to perception, the more must he concentrate his

attention on appearances (Goffrnan 1959: 249).
If we must rely on appearances for much of our information about situations and the
people involved in them, what can we do? Mills (1940) argues that we cannot peep
behind explanations and opinions (verbalized motives) and look for the supposedly “real
attitude or motive” operating inside of an individual. “When we ask for the...‘real
motive’ rather than the ‘rationalization,’ all we can be meaningfully asking for is the
controlling speech form which was incipiently or overtly present in the performed act or
series of acts” (pp. 909-10). However, Mills contends that there is an empirical way to
“guide and limit, in given historical situations, investigations of motives. That is by the
construction of typal vocabularies of motives that are extant in types of situations and
actions” (p. 910). But where does this leave us and what can we do as researchers with
these forms of speech?

Mills emphasizes that motives are not necessarily the source of behavior, but are

social phenomena that need to be explained because they are attributed and/or declared in

situations where one’s behavior is, or can be, questioned (1940: 904-5). He argues that

we need to examine the functions of motives in certain situations and not simply ask

137

someone what “motivated” them and then place their answer at the beginning of a causal
chain. Rather, motives are data that can be examined within an analytic fi'amework
where their functions in legitirnating past and present actions, and guiding future ones,
can be studied. By asking respondents about their work and asking them to reflect on the
issues surrounding immigration reform, the interview schedule (see Appendix 2) was
designed to draw out the kinds of data needed for examining verbalized motives.

The method described above is only a preliminary attempt to understand, not
locate, motives. This is an uncomfortable position to be in—morally and intellectually.
Mills’ suggestions take us to the very edge of relativism where we try to come to grips
with the limitations of social science by developing a method that fights them at the stage
of inquiry. His perspective and method allows the researcher to avoid choosing between
accepting a respondent’s words as true and reading between the lines as Wellman (1994)
tends to do. But from a practical standpoint, does it matter if we can never know what
“really motivates” a person’s behavior? Mills argues that our objective is to develop an
analysis of “the integrating, controlling, and specifying function a certain type of speech
fulfills in socially situated actions” (1940: 905). If we succeed in this endeavor, and if
Mills’ argument that vocabularies of motive affect present and future behavior, the
perspective and related methods used in this study are ideally suited for connecting the
views of immigration advocates to the contexts in which their perspectives are refined

and actions initiated.

Immigration and the Politics of Reform: An Analytical Preview
At this point, expansionist and restrictionist depictions of the immigration debate are

briefly introduced. Their worldviews are thoroughly examined in Chapters 5 and 6, but

138

the broad political and ethical contexts framing the debate are primarily considered in this
chapter. The immigration debate, taken as a whole, rotates on different perceptions of
national needs and wants: How, and on what basis, should the national interest be
defined?

Ivan Light argues that the national interest is typically ambiguous and settled by
complex tradeoffs. When countries formulate immigration and immigrant policies, they
prioritize their cultural, demographic, economic, enviromnental, political, and racial
interests. Presidents Taft and Wilson, for example, both vetoed what was to become the
Immigration Act of 1917 (which created an Asian “barred zone”) because they “did not
think California’s racial purity was compensation enough for antagonizing the
Japanese...” (1996: 60). To this day, restrictionists and expansionists are still arranging
the national interest in dissimilar ways and competing for political leverage and public
support.

One expansionist explains that their objectives originate in competing visions:
“The 1990s are all about competing visions. . .Here [in Washington, DC] you really have
visions in conflict.” The metaphor of competing visions is apt for two reasons. First, it is
a sociological truism that our worldviews, our visions, exert a tremendous influence on
our perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Second, Thomas Sowell uses the same
metaphor to classify different “visions of how the world works” (1987: 13). In A Conflict
of Visions he examines the theoretical underpinnings of political struggles by contrasting
what he calls “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions. Different visions of human
nature, human potential, and social causation provoke different perceptions and

consequently, different policy proposals. Sowell admits to having dichotomized a

139

continuum, but suggests that “constrained” and “unconstrained” be qualified with the
words “more” or “less” (e.g., more constrained, less constrained).

In like manner, “expansionist” and “restrictionist” do not represent all-or-nothing
postures, but signify tendencies. Expansionists, for example, favor the maintenance or
expansion of current immigration quotas, but many of them believe that restricting illegal
immigration and reducing the number of fi'audulent refugee and asylee claims is
imperative. Restrictionists, on the other hand, would like to see the numbers reduced, but
some oppose recent attempts to restrict immigrant access to American social services.

In short, restrictionists are more or less restrictionist and expansionists are more
or less expansionist. If given the option, expansionists would probably call themselves
“pro-immigrant,” and restrictionists would likely pick “immigration reform” to describe
their efforts. However, these terms are more political than descriptive. Some
expansionists view welfare as a “disservice to immigrants” and believe immigrants
should be thoroughly “Americanized.” Are these positions unequivocally pro-

99 6‘

immigrant? And for most “reformers, reform” means “restriction.” One expansionist
put it this way: “The other side always calls themselves “reformers”. . .you don’t get that
word “reform.” What you mean by reform is less immigration. . .What makes that a
reform?. . .I think that’s deform.” While “expansionist” and “restrictionist” are not
perfect, they are empirically and metaphorically more accurate than the above terms.
Questions of admittance and membership have, historically, attracted vocal
interests. Like two side-by-side trains travelling in opposite directions, projections and

arguments fly past each other. Spectators see the cars pass, hear the rumble, and feel the

vibration, but in the end have a difficult time—with all of the noise and commotion—

140

deciding which train is headed in the right direction. Like matters of admittance and
membership, legitimate national interests are debated within a decidedly political, and
complex, context.

Restrictionists and expansionists acknowledge the importance of passing an
amorphous, but certain, legitimacy test. One expansionist explains: “Washington
confuses. . .kinetic energy for progress. . .Here, you have to keep some legitimacy. . .If they
[organizations] pass the plausibility test, then you’re in business.” Some expansionists
claim restrictionist objectives are nonnatively out of bounds by referring to them as
“racist” and “un-American.” Some restrictionists do the very same thing by asserting that
expansionists advocate “open borders” (read “un-American”). Both sides insist their
proposed norms are in line with society’s expectations or “right” in some sense. The
binding character of norms are used to register social disapproval, secure public

acceptance, and improve political standing (Bosniak 1997 : 284; Habermas 1975: 97-110).

Legitimacy

Restrictionists use analogies to illuminate the congruence between their policy
recommendations and the opinions of ordinary Americans. Their ideas, they suggest, are
already endorsed by the American public, although in different areas of life. Here are

two examples:

I think it’s perfectly legitimate for me when 1 write my will to include my children in my
will, but not all the other children in the world. Is that nativism? Is that preferring my
own? Yeah, well it’s true I do prefer to take care of my own and beyond that I have other
closer associations—l take care of my own community. I left some money in my will for
my local community foundation. I do believe that there are hundreds of other community
foundations around—this is the one I know, I prefer it. It’s not that I say the others are
“bad” or “mean spirited” or beneath me or something. . .so. . .do I prefer the things that are
closest to me and most important to me? Of course I do, and so does everybody else in the
world. Is that nativism? If that’s nativism, then everybody I know is a nativist.

141

The one [accusation] you hear most often [from expansionists] is racism. . .“Because you
want to block immigration you must therefore not like people that are different than you.
Therefore, you’re a racist”. . .If I had to judge on the actual racists, between all the people
that are countering and saying they’re not. . .my take would probably be 10% probably are
racists, maybe more, but it’s such a slippery term, anyway. Are you a racist just because
you like your family better than someone else’s family. . .?

Restrictionists emphasize the resemblance between what people are already doing and
their suggestions for reform. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with preferences, they
maintain, because they’re a part of life. In fact, they arise naturally: “The other side tries
to give you the idea that if you have these natural preferences, that you’re a Nazi or a
Fascist or whatever words they throw at you...” It is an understatement to say that
restrictionists are familiar with the charges of racism and “anti-immigrant.”

One prominent restrictionist explains that he is not “anti-immigration” simply
because he would like less of it:

. . .1 think that it’s legitimate to have restrictions on the operations of an automobile. I think
it’s okay to have to be sixteen before you get a license and to have speed limits and to say
that you can’t. . .drive drunk and that you need to be able to read the chart down at the
drivers license bureau. So, does that make me anti-automobile? So, I'm not anti
immigration. I’m interested in one set of regulations. . .somebody else is interested in a
different set. So, that doesn’t make either one of us “anti” or “pro”—it’s a question
again—what are the rules going to be? Let’s get beyond this accusing each other and
rhetoric...

Another influential restrictionist concurs. Wanting fewer immigrants is not inherently
“anti-immigrant” or “uh-American,” but simply a different objective:

I consider ourselves to be a pro-immigrant organization. We just want fewer of them in the
future. . .The other side tries to come up with “nativist,” “xenophobic,” you know, “anti-
immigrant”. . .for them, that’s just sort of an empirical description. . .And to be perfectly
honest, there’s too many people on our side who “anti-immigrant” accurately
describes...And immigration really is part of our national heritage, but there’s no reason
that immigration of 300,000 a year is somehow not part of our national character. . .What it
really boils down to is there’s nothing intrinsically un-American about cutting immigration
to 300,000 a year, say. The other side has very successfully made the argument that
immigration restriction is un-American. And because the low immigration side has been
so heavily represented, for so long, by people who really don’t think of themselves in any
fundamental, emotional sense, as patriotic Americans, the other side has. . .sort of wrapped
themselves in the flag in a sense, because people on the low immigration side don’t want to

142

salute the flag.. .That is really what it boils down to and we’ve gotten clobbered because of
that...

Even though restrictionists and expansionists argue there is “nothing magical” about the
number of annual admissions, they nevertheless align their proposals with America’s
immigrant tradition. Restrictionists argue that lower levels largely square with American
history (particularly before 1965) and expansionists contend that current numbers are not,
relative to the U.S. population, historically high (e.g., see Beck 1994: 113; Brimelow
1996: 38; Cato Handbook for Congress 1997: 315).

Like restrictionists, expansionists are quick to point out what is legitimate and
what is not. But rather than lobby for a new arrangement or perspective, they usually
bring up specific policies or the immigration system. By and large, they give
restrictionists the benefit of the doubt, but draw the line at race. Peter Brimelow (author
of Alien Nation) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) are
popular targets:

And I think many of them [restrictionists] are operating on good motives too. . .You. . .have
a sort of cultural, conservative argument which can, I think, be a very disciplined kind of
argument. . .versus one that’s very undisciplined, like Peter Brimelow’s. . .I think Peter
Brimelow doesn’t like people who aren’t white. . .There’s sort of a fear of foreign
subversion [in Brimelow’s book], particularly a fear of American becoming a majority
minority country. And again, 1 don’t think these fears are completely irrational or stupid or
necessarily racist in and of themselves so long as we think them through because I think
there are good responses to each of these kinds of worries. It’s when they’re taken to
rather bizarre degrees that you begin to see some of the ugliness...

I feel it’s legitimate to have a debate in this country about how many immigrants and who
they ought to be and based on what relations. . .I think that’s legitimate. I think it’s
legitimate to take a view we’re bringing in too many people. I don’t think it’s legitimate to
use the immigration issue to create and stir up racial and ethnic conflict, which is what
their [FAIR] game is.

I very much understand where they [FAIR] are coming from—much more the Center for
Immigration Studies than FAIR. Interestingly enough, even with individuals with the
FAIR organization—particularly earlier people—I can understand, you know, what it is
that they think that they would accomplish. That’s where we part company. . .They worry
about things—some of which are legitimate and some of which [are] not. . .The element of
FAIR that has to do with race, that has to do with supremacy, that has to do with all of this,

143

you know—what fully represents the uglier parts of everyone’s soul—you know, what is
there to understand? That should be condemned openly. . .but you know, that part that
comes from, in a sense, a misguided sort of bleeding heart liberalism, you know, for the
downtrodden, for the minorities, etcetera, etcetera—l understand that. . .So, is there part of
the FAIR message that I think is legitimate? Yes. Do I think they have a right to do what
they are doing. Absolutely yes. . .1 find some of the people at the Center for Immigration
Studies, you know, much more easier to take than the people at FAIR. . .The head of the
Center for Immigration Studies has his heart in the right place in many, many of the things
that he’s concerned about.

Instead of proposing significant changes in immigration policy, expansionists typically
focus on the subtleties of the debate and immigration system. Generally content with the
current arrangement (see Chapter 6), they rarely suggest fundamental changes or
emphasize the legitimacy of their efforts, but instead develop political strategies or
recommend ways to improve, or “tweak,” the system. As one expansionist put it: “I’d
probably leave our general immigration numbers alone and maybe tweak the system in a
few areas.”

The very idea of “tweaking” the immigration system is typical of expansionists
and exemplifies their general satisfaction with present policies. Although restrictionists
prescribe various changes, their suggestions usually belong to more encompassing and
sweeping sets of reforms (e.g., a moratorium on immigration, replacement-level
migration, etc.). Expansionists rarely propose sweeping changes. The current system
works pretty well: “. . .I do feel we have sort of inadvertently, in this country, stumbled
upon a pretty good immigration policy. It’s not perfect. . .You know, I’d tweak it here or
there, I’d increase the numbers, but you know it seems to work pretty well.” If
immigration policy were a home stereo requiring adjustment, expansionists would likely
fine-tune the receiver and calibrate the speakers. Restrictionists, however, would

probably replace the receiver and speakers with more modest, rebuilt components.

144

Not surprisingly, notions about “reasonable” or “proper” policies are closely tied
to values and the evaluations they engender. Because restrictionists are predominantly
concerned with overpopulation and environmental degradation, the current flow of
immigration is, in their estimation, at crisis levels (see Chapter 5). They typically use
words like “flood” and “invasion” to describe the situation. One expansionist explains
that restrictionists value the environment more than economic growth:

I think in some ways they’re [expansionists and restrictionists] talking past each other
because you’re talking about people who really want vigorous economic growth, perhaps
at the expense of other things versus people who may be willing to do without vigorous
economic growth in order to preserve something. . .I think what you’ve got are people who
have different assumptions, different values. . .and so they talk past each other...
[Restrictionists] value having a national environment they see disappearing and that they
understand is disappearing because of population growth.

Determinations of legitimacy are rooted in the value systems which give rise to them, and
as discussed in Chapter 2, in their formal codification. The standards implied by beliefs
and legal codes are, however, negotiated and set within a decidedly political context.
This setting can also influence the progression and regression of an issue along the

“legitimacy continuum.”

Working the Context

The struggle to recognize, define, and legitimate social problems is political. And
ongoing. Expansionists and restrictionists look to empirical, moral, ethical, and historical
justifications to secure public consideration, to have their perspectives become the
public’s perceptions. But in Darwinian-like fashion, some arguments are ignored, others
avoided, and some are “rushed along to legitimacy by a strong and influential backing”

while others claw their way to respectability (Blumerl971: 303).

145

The very first sentence of Chapter 1, in fact, considers the subject of immigration
reform problematic: “Does international migration undermine the well-being and
progress of host countries, as some people argue, or is the problem the reactions of those
who express such views?” Simply because a set of social conditions is perceived as
perilous by a certain segment of society does not mean it will enter the public arena, let
alone be taken seriously. A problem must gain recognition and legitimacy before it can
even enter the public ring as a serious contender for debate and discussion (Blumer
1971).

While public recognition and respectability are needed to mobilize the public,
they exact a price. Immigration researchers, in particular, recognize the costs. They see
accurate information in the corner, taking a beating. Researchers from a nonpartisan
organization explain:

The big battle here. . . is that people. . .demand oversimplification. We refuse to give them
black and white. The real knowledge, the real understanding of immigration, comes from
toiling in the gray areas. . .Everything is in the context. The entire explanation is in the
context. . .There are different ways of looking at all of this, but of course, nobody wants a
complicated picture. . .Washington is concerned with. ..instant experts who know nothing
about the issue, but [who] have access to some of the major. . .news magazines, who
ultimately become immigration experts. I am shocked, okay, I’m shocked by all of these
instant immigration experts—all of these elite opinion shapers. ..Well, you can get
expertise, you know, for a couple thousand dollars and an investment of about 30 days in
research. . .And yet these are the people, and these are the outlets, that make the most
difference in the debate. . .Over here, you know, you have Brimelow become an expert on
U.S. immigration. And, you know. . .you realize that he doesn’t know a damn thing, but
that’s not the issue. . .Now, there are lessons there. One of those lessons is we haven’t done
a good enough job, in terms of playing the public game, of which they are so good...

The problem with experts like us is that. . .there’s all kinds of credentialed people out there
with opinions. So you can find whatever opinions you’re shopping for and find someone
who’s got a credential that enables you to call that person an expert. It doesn’t matter
whether they’ve. . .made their calculations on the back of a napkin at lunch....The Social
Science Research Council had a big report that came out and. . .because the discussion
about immigration in the country is framed as a debate...this was not seen as. . .a definitive
statement about immigration but was instead immediately transformed. It’s conclusions
were immediately transformed into one side of an ongoing policy debate. So. . .the opening
leads of the stories I saw in the newspapers and in CNN and so on was inevitably “the

146

Social Science Research Council,” you know, “which is comprised of 25 very
distinguished economists and social scientists and demographers and sociologists. . .have
come out with this. . .However, Jack Spratt at FAIR, or whoever it is, has got

really. . .meaningful credentials”. . .The. . .sort of equal weighting of a intellectual
featherweight and. . .this incredibly thorough, massive, tome really did a tremendous
disservice. . .Work that aims for impartiality and objectivity immediately just becomes grist
for the political. . .all research is seen as advocacy research or is portrayed as advocacy
research, unintentionally perhaps by the media, and that’s how it enters the debate, so I
think that. . . in today’s climate, the sort of quiet, rational voice tends to get left

behind. . .Clearly people on both the open borders side of the fence and the Alien Nation
side of the fence are going to view us as belonging to the wrong side.

The conversion of impartial reports into advocacy broadcasts may muddy the issue and
annoy researchers, but activists say the debate is not won with facts and figures, but with
emotions. The debate is driven—not by research and rationality—but by gut-level
reactions and values.

When presenting (not refuting) an issue, some expansionists and restrictionists try
to steer clear of research reports. Published studies reassure fellow believers, but neglect
the people who are “up for grabs.” After two years of travelling the country, a prominent
expansionist explains why he “got away from a recitation” of facts and figures: “The
only people interested were people who already agreed. . .This is an emotional, value-
laden debate and when we started to engage it on those terms. . .we started to diffuse and
neutralize the advantage of the restrictionists.” A restrictionist concurs: “We need to
address [people] on an emotional [basis]... Frankly, I think that. . .we’re too intellectual,
we’re too rational. . .We spend. . .time on that level when there isn’t any debating to be
done on that level...”

The emotions of restrictionists and expansionists are, however, quickly stirred by
racial matters and questions of organizational fimding. Both issues are intimately
connected in the minds of both parities. Some expansionists believe the restrictionist

movement is backed, in part, by eugenicists and racists: “My take on [FAIR] is that they

147

are eugenicists. .. Look at the people from the environmental-population control
movement that control FAIR and U.S. English.” In his mind, they “think there are too
many people in the world, there’s too many people in the United States, and they’re the
wrong kind of people and that white folks are being taken over.” For expansionists,
suspicions like these were confirmed in the late 19803 when John Tanton’s WITAN
memo was leaked to the press (see Chapter 2) and FAIR acknowledged the acceptance of
money from the Pioneer Fund. In the past, the Pioneer Fund has funded race-IQ and
eugenics research (Stefancic 1997).

One restrictionist contends that Cordelia Scaife May, the largest contributor to the
restrictionist movement, is well-intentioned, but believes FAIR diminished its efforts and
polluted the restrictionist skyline by accepting money from donors like the Pioneer Fund.
Actions like these make them “morally ambiguous”:

The principle funder for the immigration reform movement in America, for every single
organization in the immigration reform movement in America, is a woman by the name of
Cordelia Scaife May. . .Cordelia. ..is a very nice woman. I like her personally. ..She’s
worth 700 million, or 800 or 900 million dollars...She is an environmentalist who is tired
of the sirnpering, pandering, bullshit of the environmental movement. . .But none of these
organizations, the environmental organizations, talk about the underlying disease. You
see, if you were coughing up blood and 1.. .gave you cough syrup, you’d think I was a
shitty doctor wouldn’t you? You’d say what’s the underlying problem? Underlying
problem in the environmental debate is population. . .And Mrs. Mac is correct that that’s
the name of the tune. She’s also correct that immigration is a huge driver in all of

this. . .They’ve [FAIR] made a pack with the Devil. They’ve made a pack to take money
from racist foundations. They made a pack to keep people on the board who, in my
opinion, have nativist tendencies. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not a guy who throws his
words around that easily. . .If she [Cordelia Scaife May] wants the debate to go to the show,
it [FAIR] has to say “fuck you” to the nativists, it has to stick to some core arguments and
a principled position. . .It has to say “no” to donors like the Pioneer Fund, and if it doesn’t,
it sets itself up. It compromises everything. . .It also makes you morally ambiguous... Will
you sleep with me for 85, will you sleep with me for $50,000—now we ’re just arguing over
the price. F AIR’s argument with the Pioneer Fund was that it only represents 2% of its
budget—bullshit. Okay, we won’t even go into that stuff. . .If it’s such a small percentage
of the money, then drop the rock. . .[italics added]

148

The idea of moral ambiguity highlights the link between authority and legitimacy. The
legitimacy of an argument depends, in part, on the person delivering it. If a spokesperson
is perceived as an appropriate representative of a given position, his or her authority and
intentions are given only a cursory glance. In other words, he or she has the moral or
legal authority to raise the issue. Identity politics are often an offshoot of this link.

Unlike the above observation, restrictionists usually reprimand expansionist
organizations for their ties to the Ford Foundation. Ethnic lobbies like the Mexican
American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) and National Council of La Raza are roundly
criticized for their foundation origins and support: “These are not just a bunch of ragtag
people without resources. They get millions of dollars from the Ford Foundation. Ford
is apparently taken over by this left-wing clique. . .They created MALDEF—that’s a Ford
Foundation creation there.” Even some expansionists disapprove of La Raza and
MALDEF: “. . .to this day, they’re not membership organizations. . .they don’t have
members, they don’t have dues. . .La Raza claims to represent all Hispanics, yet has no
members and relies almost entirely on foundation grants and federal grants for its
funding.”

One restrictionist believes that some ethnic lobbies are used by foundations and
business groups to advance their financial interests:

As a Mexican American, I wasn’t searching for political correctness, I was searching for
truth. ..What you have. ..in my opinion, is an immigration policy that. . .tends to benefit
certain liberal interests, including ethnic interests. . .ethnic politicians, ethnic
professionals... When all is said and done. . .the points of view of a limited Hispanic
leadership is used by the business community and by libertarians ideologues to promote an
expansive immigration policy. . .That is essentially what I have come to believe about
what’s driving immigration today. . .If you sit back and consider the millions of dollars that
flow from Northeastern, liberal foundations, and business groups, into putatively civil
rights-oriented ethnic organizations (that reflexively lobby intensely against any kind of
immigration reform in the country) and who make their reputations on trying to persuade
liberal Americans that any kind of immigration reform is a throwback to the kind of

149

persecution that African Americans suffered in the days of Jim Crow—then you can see
that the organizations that want. . . immigration [are] somehow benefiting. It really doesn’t
make sense because the beneficiaries in this debate. . .from decade to decade. . .are deriving
[an] enormous amount of financial support from foundations. . .whose orientations [are] not
so much liberal, in the traditional sense, but rather libertarian, in [their] business objectives.
And to be specific—objectives that are grounded in expanding the size of the labor supply
in order to depress wages and working conditions...

In the late 19603, MALDEF and La Raza were basically produced within the walls of the
Ford Foundation. Restrictionists regularly sharpen this detail into a point: they (unlike
expansionists) represent the majority of Americans. “Right now,” Peter Brimelow
asserts, immigration policy is “unusually undemocratic, in the sense that Americans have
told pollsters long and loudly that they don’t want any more immigration; but the
politicians ignore them” (1996: xviii, italics in original).

The same cannot be said of immigration researchers. Many of them study the
public’s attitudes toward immigrants and the policies affecting them (e.g., see
Espenshade and Hempstead 1996; Huber 1997; Johnson, Farrell, Guinn 1997). This
research design, however, examines the worldviews of immigration activists. Before
examining this data in the next two chapters, a brief description of their organization and

contents is in order.

Expansionist and Restrictionist Worldviews

The photographs of restrictionists (Chapter 5) and expansionists (Chapter 6) are duskier,
but also clearer than conventional images. Because the photographs were developed with
an eye toward the most evident features, idiosyncrasies sometimes blur into the
background. Exceptions, nuance, and details appear, but they always make room for the
more prominent themes that emerged during data collection and analysis. The content

and contours of these representations are particularly distinct because the interpretive

150

systems of expansionists and restrictionists were used to filter their own portraits. In
some respects, the snapshots are more precise than if I had simply pointed my camera and
clicked.

Of course, the pictures I have taken are second-order interpretations of first-order
interpretations. That is, they are reconstructions of people’s ideas and meanings
(Neuman 1994: 324). The worldviews captured by my lenses are intended to reflect, as
much as possible, the perceptual and interpretive systems of immigration activists. I will
not be correcting what I consider to be misrepresentations of immigration policies and
research, inaccurate facts, or errors in logic. They’re all in there and I leave them alone.
Kristin Luker, in the preface to her research on abortion activists writes:

If I have done my job well, both sides will soon conclude that I have been unduly
generous with the opposition and unfairly critical of themselves. They will become
annoyed and perhaps outraged as they read things they know to be simply and
completely wrong (1984: xiii).
I hope to receive the same kind of backhanded complement. Using the activists’ ideas,
interpretations, and logic to symbolize their own worldviews was the objective. These
representations are not representative of all restrictionists and expansionists, but only
refer to the people interviewed for this investigation. If the representations seem too
generous or critical (depending on the reader’s vantage point), then perhaps, I have also
done my job well. The arguments of expansionists and restrictionists are presented from
their vantage points, and I often write as if I agree with their assessments. I am a
restrictionist in Chapter 5, an expansionist in Chapter 6, and a sociologist throughout.

Expansionists and restrictionists are compared along three dimensions: entry

points, human nature/human nurture, and nationalism/globalism. Adherents on both

151

sides of the debate enter through different doors, or entry points. A prominent
restrictionist explains:

When [I sit down with fellow activists] I say. . .something like, “Well, you know there’s
about eight major ways people get involved with this issue. . .What was your entry point?”
And I’ll always tell them...mine was environment and population...because...in a lot of
ways the entry point is the one. . .position you won’t budge from...

In general, restrictionists are unwilling to “budge” from two overriding concerns: (1)
overpopulation and its contribution to environmental degradation and (2) demographic
changes curbing the political power and cultural influence of European Americans.
Unlike restrictionists, who view immigration in terms of depletion, expansionists see
immigration in terms of completion, or more specifically, augmentation. Expansionists
argue that (1) the American experiment with immigration has been “a godsend” and that
(2) immigrants contribute to the economy and culture of the United States.

Both sides also espouse different conceptions of humans and nature. For some
restrictionists, the relationship between humans and nature is one of limits. Humans are
not exempt from physical laws or their own nature. Prudent immigration and foreign aid

‘6

policies will, in their estimation, yield to natural laws: ...you can’t have grth in
anything on a finite, closed, materially-limited world forever.” Expansionists, on the
other hand, contend that the relationship between humans and nature is one of potential.
Americans can exceed natural “limits” by nurturing human ingenuity and can nurture
generosity and tolerance “by extending ourselves out and by. . .engaging and struggling.”
Lastly, restrictionists are more national, and expansionists more global, in their
outlooks. Restrictionists assert that the U.S. cannot admit all of the world’s dispossessed

(either through foreign aid or immigration) and needs to place national rights in front of

human rights. Lines have to be drawn in a world of limits. Expansionists, however, see

152

immigration as an inevitable outcome of globalization. In their minds, immigration can
be managed by developing flexible and humane policies. In this global “race” for human
and investment capital, the United States should import both as quickly as possible.

In comparing the worldviews of natural scientists and “literary intellectuals,” C.P.
Snow concluded in his now classic Two Cultures that words “are always simpler than the
brute reality from which they make patterns: if they weren’t, discussion and collective
action would both be impossible” (1964: 66). Similarly, the themes noted above
admittedly make patterns of a very complex and rich reality. But the perceptions and
suggestions of restrictionists and expansionists do fall into general patterns. These

themes are the subject of the next two chapters.

Summary of Research Methods
Comparing immigration reform efforts—intentional actions designed to produce or
prevent change in current immigration realities—and the worldviews which
fundamentally incite and interpret these maneuvers—to a contextualized review of
immigrant reception, elucidates the essence of American nativism. This research
reconceptualizes the concept of nativism for the purpose of explaining how and why
nativism occurs in the United States and deepens our understanding of the people and
organizations who currently contribute, directly and indirectly, to American immigration
and immigrant policies. The relationship between context and meaning is studied in the
next three chapters by examining the worldviews of expansionists and restrictionists and

situating these perceptions within a variety of social contexts.

153

CHAPTER 5

RESTRICTIONIST WORLDVIEWS

Restrictionists propose a reduction in U.S. immigration levels. Annual admissions are, in
their estimation, a threat to the American environment and the people it sustains. Some
restrictionists stress the dangers of overpopulation and environmental degradation, while
others contend that the demographic and cultural trends fueled by immigration are
disrupting the country’s ethnic balance, values, and polity. Some emphasize both
hazards. In general, cultural decline and overpopulation require significant reductions in
U.S. immigration levels. The United States needs to square its immigration policies with
natural laws and human nature if it’s going to ensure the well-being of its citizens. A
country cannot sustain a population larger than the one offered by its habitat and should
not compromise the integrity of its lifeboat in order to ease the overcrowding of other
countries. Like any other nation-state, the United States has the right to align numerical
quotas and admittance criteria with its own needs and preferences. Even in this age of
globalism, national rights supercede human rights. The time has come, restrictionists
argue, for the United States to recognize the environmental and social costs of
immigration and reduce it accordingly—before today’s damages become tomorrow’s

hardships.

Entry Points
The impact of immigration on the size and growth rate of the United States absorbs the
attention of many restrictionists. Pulled in by concerns of overpopulation and

environmental degradation, they consider current immigration levels a threat to humans

154

and the environment. Widened by a collision between ecological objectives and
immigration levels, this opening has become a main entryway in the last thirty years.
Other restrictionists are taken in by demographic projections. Apprehensive about
political and cultural trends, they believe incoming immigrants exacerbate interethnic
relations and diminish the political power of native-born whites. While other misgivings
certainly exist, restrictionists generally enter the debate through one, or both, of these

doors.

Population and Environment
According to Feagin (1997), nativists (his term) have been trying to restrict, exclude, or
attack immigrants for the last two hundred years because of their presumed racial
inferiority, improbable assimilation, and exacerbation of economic and social problems.
The title of his review suggests that contemporary nativism is merely “old poison in new
bottles.” However, Feagin overlooks a primary concern among today’s restrictionists—-
U.S. population growth. Many restrictionists attribute environmental degradation and a
shrinking resource base to a growing U.S. population. Reducing immigration levels is
necessary, they insist, because immigration and immigrant fertility accelerate the U.S.
growth rate. Historically speaking, this contention is relatively new. One expansionist
explains: “You know, we’re talking about the debate being the same eighty or ninety
years ago. The economics were there, the culture was there—the environment and
population control stuff is the only new twist...”

This “new twist” is not insignificant. The entry points through which
restrictionists enter the debate are many, but restrictionists active at the national level

largely enter through an entrance marked “population growth.” An overriding concern

155

with population control, not immigration per se, brings them to the issue. Asked to
explain their interest in reducing immigration levels, restrictionists repeatedly refer to the
consequences of population growth:

Over the next fifty-five years, we’re looking at having 400 million Americans. Right now,
we’re about 267 [million]. So that’s a 130 more million Americans we’re going to have to
educate, feed, house, employ. . .It’s gonna really be a huge drain on our environment.
Right now, with 267 million Americans, 40% of our lakes and streams aren’t even
swimmable. What’s gonna happen when we add another 50% to our population? That’s
the main reason we’re looking at the issue. You’ll have folks come out and say, “Well, no,
you’re anti-Mexican or anti-European or anti-South American.” No, we don’t really care
where people come from. We just want to see the numbers reduced. The whole reason I
got into this issue is I just think that population is the key issue, and if we can do
something about it now, we’re gonna be much better off in the future. . .A lot of people see
the environment as one issue, population as another issue, and immigration as another
issue—no one really understands that linkage.

It struck me [at a conference in 1989] that [population]. . .is really the underlying

problem. . .The concern about not only rapid population abroad, but of course at home we
have. . .environmental problems that. . .are really the symptoms of population pressure on
everything—on land and water resources and air and atmosphere and habitat. . .Everything
that we do to protect and preserve the environment—any victories that we have—will be
swept away by continuing growth...

Any problem that you point out that America has today, or most anywhere else in the
world, at root cause there’s some population issue. . .1 see everything important, or most
things important, as relating somehow to some kind of population issues.

More and more, I realized that most of the issues I was covering in Congress, where
Congress was trying to make something better for people—child poverty, dropout rates,
education problems, clean air, clean water, biodiversity, urban sprawl, traffic problems,
infrastructure. . .I began to see that every one of those issues was being affected by
immigration policy, and that Congress was undercutting. . .all of its efforts... I personally
don’t want to live in the United States with double the population. You see, that’s the
bottom line with me. . .I do not believe it’s possible to retain the American style of

life. . .and to protect the environment like we want to, with double the

population. ..Basically, we’re on target to double the 1970 population by 2050. . .I’m
talking about doubling it from 1970, Earth Day. Of course, it’s not going to stop even if
we double. . .It just keeps growing. . .All those other things [e.g., cultural and economic
concerns] can be solved, but until you can prove to me that. . .we can meet all of our
standards right now with the current population, then I’m opposed to any governmental
policy that forces population growth.

Restrictionist estimates of natural resources, overpopulation, and quality of life are

usually based, either implicitly or explicitly, on the concept of “carrying capacity.”

156

Carrying capacity is “the number of individuals who can be supported without degrading
the natural, cultural and social environment, i.e., without reducing the ability of the
environment to sustain the desired quality of life over the long term” (Durham 1997).

If the carrying capacity of a given area is 1,000 then approximately 1,000 people
can enjoy a specified quality of life within that zone without reducing the environment’s
ability to sustain that level of living over the long term. Restrictionists admit the concept
is variable and somewhat vague, but argue that “current levels of per capita
environmental impact” are already exceeding the environmental carrying capacity of the
United States. A noted restrictionist, Roy Beck, contends that “if sustainable living can
be defined as enjoying the fruit without harming the tree that produces it, then there is
ample evidence that 260 million Americans are already hacking vigorously at the trunk”
(1994: 14-20).

The concept, however, has its detractors. The Cato Institute, an expansionist
organization, contends that every person in the world could live in Texas and occupy
1,400 square feet. Restrictionists argue this exercise is misleading: estimates of
overpopulation are not based on land area but on carrying capacity. Overpopulation is
more than a space problem—Texas could not sustain the world’s population without
depleting the resources beyond their capacity to replenish. People would begin dying.
Another variation of this reasoning is expressed in the “empty lands” argument: “What if
the U.S. population were dispersed to relatively unpopulated areas? Whenever I fly over
the United States I see a lot of open space” (Beck 1994).

One expansionist, for example, relies on the logic of open space to explain his

‘6

dismissal of restrictionist warnings: ...you know, when I fly across this country from

157

Washington to California, what impresses me is the vast emptiness of the place, so I’m
not particularly worried [about population growth in the United States]. . .” Most
expansionists, however, rarely discuss population growth or environmental degradation.
They know restrictionists worry about these things, but see little or no reason why they
should. Most regard their conclusions as nonsense, but others are “agnostic” in that they
don’t know what to think: “. . .the. . .concem about the environment and population, I’m
agnostic about. Fundamentally, I think they’re silly concerns, okay? But, you know,
since I don’t study these things. . .I’m essentially, firndamentally, agnostic.” Not
convinced, but not indifferent, expansionists devote little attention to restrictionist
warnings. They prefer the persuasion of their cultural and economic arguments over
restrictionist scenarios of environmental degradation and overpopulation.
Because not all experts are convinced that the United States has exceeded its
carrying capacity, restrictionists then ask, why take the risk? The prudent approach is to
“stop short of full carrying capacity” (Beck 1994: 29). The argument of worthwhile risk,
emerges time and time again among population restrictionists. The logic of Pascal’s
Wager is applied to population options:
If the nation wants more people later on and discovers it can handle more without
harming the environment or diminishing the quality of life, it always can increase
the population then. There will be no shortage of people wanting to come. But
decreasing population after discovering its long-term carrying capacity has been
exceeded is a much tougher and slower task, and that may not be possible at all
(Beck 1994: 29).

Population restrictionists generally believe lowering immigration levels will not

sufficiently curb population growth without the complements of abortion and family

planning. During a dinner meeting with three population restrictionists, the first topic of

conversation was not immigration, but abortion. The two topics are inextricably

158

connected for many restrictionists. Many are active in organizations like Planned
Parenthood, although some participate in family planning initiatives via the intermediacy
of environmental associations. This issue is discussed later under the heading of “public
image,” as some cultural restrictionists believe population restrictionists diminish their

reputation and hobble their political efforts.

Demographic Forecasts
Familiar with the charge of racism, many restrictionists acknowledge the presence of
racists on their side of the debate, but argue that racists are the exception and not the rule.
Some are very straightforward about the matter and even discuss cultural and racial
issues without prompting. The topics usually emerge in discussions over motives and
potential demographic projections. A smaller number of restrictionists also address
group relations and political power in terms of race and culture. Demographic changes
propelled by immigration, they submit, can diminish the culture and political influence of
European Americans.

Restrictionists understand that voicing these concerns can be seen as out of
bounds. Pulling out a map of California and table of demographic projections, a
prominent restrictionist explains:

Here’s the demographic situation in California. In 1970—population of California by
ethnicity—is seventy-seven percent Anglo, fifty years later—twenty [percent]. So is that a
legitimate concern?

Brian: What do you think?

Well, see, some people would say “Well, if you’re concerned about that sort of thing it’s
racist.” But most people are concerned about political punch and power and being in the
demographic majority. It’s common all around the world so why would somebody decide
that they want to become subject to some other people?

After stressing the connection between political power and majority status, he emphasizes

that the absence of an ethnic majority is politically ineffective:

159

I’m not really. . .interested in giving up control over my political future by becoming a
minority group that’s relegated to no political importance—in a country that I think
probably won’t work. One of the questions that’s raised in all this is Bill Clinton’s vision,
as he put it in the paper the other day, the future of the United States no longer having a
majority population—it’s all just gonna be a bunch of little groups contending with each
other. Is that really a workable situation?. . .How well does it work in Switzerland?
Switzerland’s only got five or six million people, and it doesn’t even work there very well.
Four language groups don't get along. How well does it wok in the Baltics? Not very good.
How well does it work in the Middle East? Not very good. How well does it work Sri
Lanka? How does it work in India? Doesn’t work anywhere. And yet we’ve had the
blessings of having a majority population that was generous enough—maybe not fast
enough or maybe not big enough—but to try to grant minority rights and bring a whole lot
of people along. So is this the future that works? I don't think it is. . .If. . .to be concerned
about this is racism, then what are we to say about Israel?. . .Jews in Israel, justifiably in my
view, are not interested in being a minority group in their country. The Jews make up two
thirds of Israel and have one third of the babies. The Arabs make up one third of Israel and
have two thirds of the babies—now where does that take you after a couple of generations,
you see? It takes you into political illegitimacy because one of the most powerful ideas in
the world today is majority rule. So if you lose your majority, you lose your political
legitimacy. Is that a good thing?

Some restrictionists see political struggles as a byproduct of human nature, a
consequence of living in a world that is inherently competitive. This understanding of
human nature is not only applied to politics, but to expansionists as well.

One restrictionist explains that some expansionist organizations enter the debate
for purposes of family reunification, but contends that a number of them—particularly
the ethnic lobbies—enter the ring in hopes of expanding their political power. The
natural desire to enlarge one’s power base is a legitimate objective, but should not be
sought at the expense of the country and other co-ethnics:

At two levels, people do have relatives. They want to get in here—you can’t begrudge
them that, but on the other hand, the country has the right to decide who and how many
people to let in and we just can’t let everyone in who would potentially like to come here.
But there’s also at a more basic, fundamental, political level, a struggle of a group to get
more power. And you get more power by getting more numbers first and foremost. ..So
when you get these different groups talking among themselves. . .they’re quite up-front, or
unabashed about what their aim is—-to get more people like themselves here who will get
more political power for that group, and I wouldn’t say that is racist, or that there’s
anything unseemly or unnatural about that. Every group attempts to do that. We’d like to
be bigger and more powerful by getting like-minded people to join this organization. And
the reality of ethnic and racial politics in this country anymore is that if you have a large
group of people who identify with you ethnically or racially, it’s a point in your favor as a

160

politician. That’s why you find Hispanic politicians being elected from Hispanic areas,
whites from white areas, blacks in black areas, etc. So the politicians know this. Sol
don’t begrudge a group wanting to enlarge its own power base. What bothers me is that
they’re doing it at the expense of not only the country as a whole, but even members within
the community. Because by bringing too many people over, by enlarging the population of
the country and flooding labor markets, they’re damaging Hispanic or Asian people—a lot
of whom as recent immigrants are working in low-skilled professions—damaging their
ability to ever get ahead in this country.
Expansionists often respond to projections like these with a great deal of skepticism. One
expansionist, in fact, characterizes restrictionists as “pessimists” and expansionists as
“optimists.” Expansionists look to the country’s immigration history and are optimistic
about the future. They are willing to take “a little bit of a risk,” he explains, because
“that’s what America is built on. . .it’ll work out somehow—it always has.”

But restrictionists see a history unlikely to repeat itself. The American
experiment worked, in large part, because the last great wave of immigration was
followed by a forty year breather and because assimilation, not multiculturalism, was the
modus operandi. Comparisons of the past and present are misleading because the current
stream of immigration continues unchecked:

. . . it’s alleged that “Look, look at this last great wave [in the late 18005 and early 19003]—
the wonderful things that it did for America”. . .One thing that’s always ignored by the
people who make that claim is that the last great wave was brought to an end. Arguably,
the reason we can afford to wax nostalgic now, and talk about what a wonderful thing
immigration is for the country, is because, yes, there were the twenty or thirty million
people who were brought in, but after twenty or thirty years of it, that wave was brought to

an end. It gave that mass of people and their descendants here a chance to get ahead in the
country.

With no end in sight, meaningful comparisons between the past and present are few and
far between. Unlike the last great wave, today’s flow is entering a country brimming
with people. To use the metaphor of one restrictionist, Americans are no longer

advancing on the frontier, “but the frontier is now advancing on us.” Apple to apple

161

comparisons are hard to come by and the country is full of people—what is there to be
optimistic about?

Restrictionists also question the content and value of diversity. A speech made by
President Clinton at a NAACP meeting, stressing the benefits of a multicultural society
and [multiethnic nation], drew heavy fire:

“Diversity being our greatest strength,” the Bill Clinton cliche, is silliness, it’s folly.
Diversity is something that you tolerate. Diversity is something you try to make work for
you, and you try to make a strength, but your unity is your strength. Diversity is only
helpful insofar as it helps make a stronger union, but if you can’t bring the parts together,
all you got is diversity and balkanization.

There’s also the dissatisfaction brought on by bilingualism, I think...The language
question, I think, is a big one. . .When I was living in Honduras as a Peace Corps volunteer,
I saw it as a sacred trust, a sacred mission to learn Spanish, so I could deal with people on
their own terms in their own country. I would not have imposed my English on them—to
me it would have been an affront, an example of an ugly American. . .But then coming back
to this country, I began to get the impression that a lot of social and cultural liberals here
were saying that, “Well, no, immigrants no longer have to adapt to American norms,
customs, language, etc. We have to have adopt to theirs.” And to me that was just the
opposite of the message I had gotten as a Peace Corps volunteer from our staff going to
Honduras. . .And so I think that feeling I felt in these instances is probably shared by a lot
of other Americans too. . .There’s a lot of subcultures in this country—this is part of the
diversity that President Clinton will speak about—it is part of our heritage, and it makes
this country what it is, and it is something to be proud of, but what I worry about is that. . . if
you’re trying to hold a nation together, have national unity and social cohesion, but if you
promote diversity that’s one thing, but if you go out of your way to promote it too
much...it can produce divisiveness, separatism, balkanization. . .which ultimately is really
dangerous for a country.

These changes are especially serious because the United States, in addition to its rapidly
growing population, is having a difficult time managing the diversity and cultural
changes that are already taking place.

Incoming immigrants exacerbate problems that are already out of control. In
general, they make matters worse:

. . .we have the highest levels of legal immigration that we’ve ever had—just bringing all
kinds of problems that we don’t need. In America, I don’t think we’ve solved the racial
problems between black people and white people. On top of this problem, we’re now
dumping even more potential racial problems and this, to me, is just crazy. . .Well, we
haven’t solved those problems, yet we’re bringing in more problems to deal with and the

162

numbers that we’re bringing in will certainly make these problems worse. . .So here we are
bringing in unskilled people who are lowering the living standards of our own people
([and] many of them are minorities). . .And again, you bring in all these people from Third
World cultures, you’re going to displace the values of this country. Assimilation worked
in the past, to some extent because it was understood that the immigrants would conform to
Anglo-Saxon values. I’m not saying Anglo-Saxon values are superior, but I’m just saying,
historically, that was the standard of assimilation and everyone understood this and the
American people insisted that immigrants assimilate to that standard. ..[With
multiculturalism] there’s ceasing to be a standard of assimilation at all.. .I think immigrants
assimilate to certain aspects of American culture. I mean, there are two dominant cultures
in America now, as I see it. There’s the traditional culture of, for lack of a better term,
Anglo-Saxon values, self-control, self-restraint, self-discipline—this kind of thing. And
then you have the Madonna culture. . .the culture of TV, movies. ..self-gratification,
sexuality, violence, sports mania, this kind of stuff. I think a lot of immigrants are
assimilating to that. They’re learning English and at the same time, they’re learning these
values that are not the values that made America great. Now, they’re assimilating again,
but is this the kind of assimilation that’s beneficial? I think it’s horrible that native-
American born children are assimilating to that culture rather than traditional culture. If
we’re not even assimilating our own young people how are we going to assimilate
immigrants?. . .There’s a recent study by a sociologist named Alejandro Portes. . .He made
the point that, from one of his recent studies, that children of immigrants are learning
English fairly well—they’re assimilating in that sense. But on the other hand, more and
more of them are adopting the idea that they’re hyphenated Americans. . .that they really
aren’t identifying completely with the country.

Of course, not all restrictionists are not concerned about cultural differences or
assimilation. Restrictionists focusing on population growth and enviromnental
degradation sometimes have little or nothing to say about diversity or integration. They
refer to population pressure and carrying capacity, but stop there. Everything else is of
secondary importance: “If truly there are vast horizons and there’s no end to the resource
base, then I guess we really are down to talking about things like language and how
people get along...” The substance of this inclination is observable in the convictions of
many restrictionists. The first order of business, for many of them, is population growth.
Human relationships are relevant, but the relationship between humans and nature is

much more important.

163

Human Nature
Natural scientists generally see more “nature,” and social scientists more “nurture,” in
human behavior. While not all restrictionists and expansionists were asked about their
areas of study, most restrictionists received formal training in philosophy or one of the
natural sciences. Expansionists, on the other hand, tended to congregate in the
humanities and social sciences. Although one’s worldview is not entirely shaped by
one’s college curriculum, both sides clearly embrace different conceptions of humans and
nature.

From the restrictionist point of view, the relationship between humans and nature
is one-sided. Human potential is checked by natural laws. Humans are not exempt from
the laws of nature, but subject to their boundaries. Like other animals, human behavior is
circumscribed by physical laws and human nature—no amount of browbeating,
nurturing, or socialization can trump the limits and dispositions of nature. This set of
beliefs, however, does have its detractors. Some restrictionists, especially cultrual

restrictionists, consider these ideas, and the people that push them, a political handicap.

American Exceptionalism

Restrictionists are critical of “American exceptionalism” or what Garrett Hardin (1995)
describes as the “hypothesis of human exemptionism”—the notion that natural laws have
little or no bearing on America, or on human beings in general. Expansionists think they
are “exempt from the basic laws that govern the behavior of other animals” (1995: 79).
Restrictionists fiequently comment on this notion of “exemptionism” by emphasizing that

human ingenuity, while impressive, cannot overcome natural laws.

164

The following comment on human exemptionism refers to Julian Simon, the now
deceased economist from the University of Maryland, College Park. To many
restrictionists, Simon’s work typifies the expansionist mindset:

.. .You’ve probably heard of Julian Simon in the immigration debate. He also been
involved in the environmental limits to growth debate. . .He believes that, as he puts it, the
human mind, the brain, is the ultimate resource—that there really are no limits to copper or
to oil. Even if those resources ultimately—if not run out, but at least get prohibitively
expensive to use...then we’ll simply, automatically, come up with replacements. This is
the genius of the human mind at work. . .What we would say is that these people operate on
a faith that this process can occur forever. . .These people enjoy a lot of favor because, I
think, they give a very comforting, business-as-usual sort of message. We can go on
without any basic changes in lifestyle. . .It really does come down to a matter of a faith that
people can continually pull rabbits out of the hat like magicians. . .And I don’t think nature
or reality works that way. . .They have made some really good points. One is that human
beings are flexible, one is that it is possible to substitute or replace resources that are
growing scarce. In fact, environmentalists hope for this themselves. We are also. . .prone
to, I think, [the] sort of techno fix mindset. In the case of environmentalists, it tends to be
with renewable technologies like solar energy or recycling. . .They [environmentalists]
don’t want to face that either. . .that we have to deal with the second law of
thermodynamics, that you can’t have growth in anything on a finite, closed, materially-
lirnited world, forever. . .And yet somehow we [humans] think that human beings. ..will
face no limits to growth, like everything else in nature has to. It’s almost a form of
American exceptionalism. ..it’s almost sort of a Homo sapiens exemptionism—we are so
special, either endowed by a God or as the humanists might put it, by evolution—that the
laws of nature that apply to other creatures——we’re exempt from them. . .Yes, we’re capable
of some marvelous things, yes Malthus is wrong to date, but ultimately he’s gonna be
proven right—at least in some ways.

Simon wrote extensively on economics, immigration, population, natural resources, and
the environment. He generally concluded that immigration quotas should be raised,
natural resources were not finite “in any economic sense,” and population growth would
likely have a “long-run beneficial impact on the natural resource situation” (1996).

Restrictionists not only criticize Simon’s positive-sum views, but imply that
expansionists are captive to their emotions or subscribe to a groundless faith. Referring
to the multiple motives of expansionists, one activist condenses the opinions of other
restrictionists with one single thought:

A lot of it’s tied up in American exceptionalism. . .that natural laws don’t operate in the
United States: “We are a better people,” “God. . .put together. . .the new man here”. . .The

165

idea that we could do something other people couldn’t—in terms of mixing all kinds of
different cultures, and all of that. . .All of this is things that help people feel good about
being an American, so it’s an emotional thing—“If we cuts this off, we’ve taken away
something really special about our identity...”

American exceptionalism not only snubs natural laws, but according to one restrictionist,
underrates the importance of culture:

Americans are. . .so ethnocentric, so unworldly, that we really think that everybody deep

down is just like us. . .“They just speak a different language.” But they’re not——they’re

from very different cultures. They’re playing under a very different set of rules. . .The

more people you bring in who are playing by a different set of rules. . .the harder the game

is to play——the less stable the game is. . .That is what we stand to lose—America itself. We

seem to think that culture is something that seeps out of the ground like worms when it

rains. It’s not—it’s us. . .Our culture is what is responsible for our success. Change too

dramatically who we are, change our culture too dramatically. . .change that success. . .The

idea that. . .America is somehow magic is naive.
Beliefs in American “magic” and “exceptionalism” are impediments to change.
Restrictionists find declarations of inexhaustible resources and human exemptionism
incomprehensible. This “anti-scientific, anti-logical, anti-reality strain” promotes a ho-
hum utopian posture radically at odds with the views of Thomas Malthus, a man
practically revered by some restrictionists. In 1798 his Essay on the Principle of
Population was first published anonymously, but later underwent a series of revisions
and editions bearing his name (McCleary 1952). Restrictionists esteem Malthus in much
the same way that Marxists regard Marx—generally correct and shamefully disregarded.

Malthus argued that the human power to reproduce is greater than the human

ability to produce subsistence. Misery and vice spring from this disparity (McCleary
1952). One restrictionist explains:

...that was a startling discovery that Malthus made 200 years ago—that there’s excess
reproduction in every species of plant and animal in the biological kingdom. And the
peeple who you were referring to [expansionists who examine fiscal impacts and cultural
issues]. . .they’ll talk economics, they’ll talk culture, language, and this and that, but they
never deal with people and resources. They just can’t see us in this test tube of nutrients,
where the nutrients are being depleted. That’s beyond the realm of their comprehension...

166

Malthus stressed that the exponential growth of the human population exceeds the human
capacity to produce subsistence. This tendency, when unchecked by “moral restraint,”
leads to human misery and vice (Rhoe 1997). Malthus’ projections, however, did not
materialize because, as one restrictionist explains, population pressures were relieved by
the migration of sixty million Europeans between 1840 and 1930: “So it took the
pressure off. And in fact, picking up and moving on was a solution to a lot of human
problems then, but there’s basically no place left to move now.”

Criticisms of American exceptionalism are sometimes accompanied by words like
“emotion” and “sentirnentalist.” Restrictionists describe their perspective as “rational” or
“logical,” or as one put it, “Spockesque,” referring to the always-logical Captain Spock of
Star Trek®. These perceptions are not uncommon. In many ways, restrictionists see

America’s immigrant past as an obstacle to present and future reforms:

. . .one of the common trite sayings in the immigration debate is that we are a nation of
immigrants. Well, so is every other nation a nation of immigrants. We’re maybe a bit
more recent in ours, but there’s no nation that wasn’t populated by people who came from
elsewhere at some point in history, so that’s not a distinctive thing...l don't think that
admitting immigrants is key to the future of the United States any more than it is to any
other nation. I would say what’s more key to our future is recognizing when the time for a
certain course of public policy is passed and revising it to fit the new realities and trying to
get a moral fix on the whole thing so that we don't damage other countries, say by
admitting their brightest and best, and further accentuating the economic and social and
political gap between the United Sates and less developed countries, which in turn comes
back to bite us as increased pressure for illegal immigration.

I go with logic and what makes sense and what I can physically see. . .Folks who look at the
facts, I think, usually end up on our side of the issue. You’ll hear a lot of things. . .our
immigrant tradition—we were all once immigrants—and I mean, that’s good rhetoric,

but. . .everyone in London. . .were all once immigrants too. . .The United States was a nation
of immigrants. I think now more today. . .we are a nation of citizens, and I think that’s
something that needs to have a little higher respect...

Restrictionists think expansionists cannot objectively examine immigration because

“they’re emotionally tied” to the “nation of immigrants” conception. The United States,

167

they argue, needs to focus on the present if it’s going to counteract the ruinous
consequences of overpopulation. People must recognize the limits of humans and nature.

Humans, they insist, are not exempt from natural laws. Technology cannot “fix”
the population problem, and even if it could potentially solve it, why risk it? Why not
live within nature’s limits and experience its dividends rather than wager it all at the
technology table? For restrictionists, the resource base is finite. The United States, just
like every other country in the world, sits on top of a fixed resource base. Every
additional person born in, or admitted to, the United States represents a subtraction of
some kind, and in the absence of a technical solution, the situation will not change. The
population problem is, to use Garrett Hardin’s term, a “no-technical-solution problem.”
A technical solution only requires a change “in the techniques of the natural sciences,
demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality”
(1995: 13). The game of tick-tack-toe is impossible to win if both players understand the
game perfectly and obey the rules. Similarly, the population problem is impervious to
technical solutions (1995: 13-14).

Hardin’s writings on abortion, population, and immigration are well-known,
particularly among natural scientists and restrictionists (e.g., see Hardin 1959; 1974;
1993; Hardin and Baden 1977). His essays, reprinted by F AIR and The Social Contract,
are familiar to some expansionists working at the national level. A genetically trained
biologist, Hardin is perhaps best known for two essays—the “Tragedy of the Commons”
and “Lifeboat Ethics.” Both metaphors, and their connected logic, exert a profound

influence on the worldviews of restrictionists.

168

The “Tragedy of the Commons” depicts an unmanaged economy in a crowded
world. This design becomes tragic in that the logic of the system compels people to
maximize their gains in a world of finite resources. The system, and the logic it
encourages, ultimately destroys the belongings held in common. “Tragedy” is not
sadness, but “resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things” (Harding
1995: 17).

Hardin describes the commons as a pasture “open to all” in which each rancher is
allowed to manage and maximize his herd. This arrangement works fine until the
number of cattle eventually exceeds the carrying capacity of the pasture. “At this point,
the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy” (Hardin 1995: 18).
Each rancher, acting rationally, decides that is in his best interest to add to his herd:

Explicitly, or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of
adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive
component. (1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal.
Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the
positive utility is nearly +1. (2) The negative component is a function of the additional
overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are
shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making
herdsmen is only a fraction of —1. Adding together the component partial utilities, the
rational herdsmen concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add
another animal to his herd...But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational
herdsmen sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system
that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the
destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that
believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all (Hardin
1995: 18; italics in original).

Hardin also applies the meaning of his metaphor to human reproduction by arguing that
the “freedom to breed is intolerable” in a crowded commons. “To couple the concept of
freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is

to lock the world into a tragic course of action” (1995: 23)

169

Because the costs of overbreeding are not borne solely by the responsible family
(i.e., the children of “improvident parents” are not allowed to starve), but instead are
distributed among society’s members (e.g., via the welfare state or foreign aid), it is in
the public interest to manage the breeding of families. The human freedom to reproduce
must be relinquished because no technical solution will remove the pains of
overpopulation. “A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore,
population growth must equal zero” (Hardin 1995: 13-15; 23, 30).

An affected majority needs to develop some system of mutual coercion in order to
curtail this fieedom. Appeals to conscience are ineffective. Rather, responsibility must
be produced by “definite social arrangements” which recognize the “necessity of
abandoning the commons in breeding” (1995: 22-30). As discussed below, notions of

responsibility and coercion are integral to lifeboat ethics.

Public Image
Many restrictionists share Hardin’s view of the world to the extent they believe
overpopulation, both here and abroad, threatens to destroy the American environment and
diminish the quality of people’s lives. It is difficult, however, to determine the extent to
which restrictionists accept his analysis because some restrictionists, particularly cultural
restrictionists, worry that Hardin and his ideas are a political handicap. They contend that
the case for lower immigration levels is being hampered, in part, by population
restrictionists.

One prominent restrictionist suggests that their effectiveness as a political
coalition is impeded by restrictionists primarily interested in population control. Their

focus on population growth sometimes gets in the way of political strategy:

170

Spencer Abraham [R-Mich., chair of the Senate immigration subcommittee] had a hearing
earlier this week which was, you know, six immigrants saying, “Well, you know, I just
love America and I started a business when I got here” and all this stuff. And I think, you
know, that’s really good, more power to you, but what does that have to do with
immigration policy, what does this tell us about getting rid of the fourth preference. . .?
Nothing, zero, it’s just absurd playing of heart strings. The problem is on our side. . .many
of the people. . .are not moved by that kind of story. You have to be moved by that kind of
story. ..in order to be able to communicate with people. . .If you’re not moved by it, you’re
not speaking the same language as the public at large...Too many people on our side don’t
like the Statue of Liberty. . .“It’s been appropriated by the other side so let’s not talk about
it,” and what they don’t understand is that the Statue of Liberty is a central icon of
American national identity. You don’t badmouth it, you don’t downplay it. If we’re gonna
win, and if there’s an element of this war that is a battle over symbols, we need to
reappropriate the Statue of Liberty, not disparage it. And that in a sense, to me, sort of
sums up the real shortcomings of the low immigration side, and that is that simply—so
much of it derives from liberal concerns about population growth. That’s [who] really
started [this movement]. . .These people are not. . .patriotic. . .not in the sense that they’re
enemies of America, they just don’t see this as a patriotic movement, and what they end up
doing is conceding, in a sense, the issue of patriotism to the high immigration side. . .They
see pro-abortionism and reductions in immigration as the same issue. You cannot
legitimately be pro-life and be for low immigration—if you are, you must be a racist. . .In
other words, you’re somebody they don’t want to deal with. . .That is where this whole
movement comes from—is liberal, population control. . .Garrett Hardin is on the board [of
FAIR]. . .He exemplifies the worst fears of people on the Right—you know, pro-abortion,
anti-human...and in fact, if you read this guy’s stuff. . .the impression really is that he really
doesn’t like people...

Another restrictionist makes a similar observation, but connects the interest in population
growth to the expansionist suspicion that some restrictionists are “anti-Catholic.”

If I were in your shoes, doing this study. . .the thing that would strike me is how cold a lot
of the immigration reform people [i.e., restrictionists] are, how cold, how into biology,
sociobiology—not enough of the warmth of human kindness. ..in general. . .The reason is
because the people who first got into this were more environmentalists and population
people, especially population people. Their major concern was just how many people are
here. They don’t care who it is. They don’t really care if they come from the outside or
whether they’re born here—they just don’t want any more. And that’s not a illegitimate
view, but the people who believe that tend to be hostile to religion—they aren’t always that
way, but they tend to be. . .They only think one thing with Catholicism—anti-family
planning—that is their one thought. They typically despise the Roman Catholic

Church. . . So there’s a kind of enmity there, and because there’s such sentimentalism on the
other side, there is. . .a contempt for those who are just sentirnentalist, instead of
compassion...

Two former Peace Corps volunteers returned to the United States fearful of population
growth and fi'ustrated with the Catholic Church. One of them, a former Catholic,

concluded that the Church’s position on birth control degraded people’s lives and were

171

fundamentally at odds with the Golden Rule: “. . .after having been in the Philippines for
a few years, and seeing how the Vatican’s policies affected the quality of life there, I
mean, I have to tell you, there’s no way I could ethically remain—my allegiance to the
Catholic Church just vanished.” While some restrictionists are critical of the Church’s
positions on abortion, birth control, and immigration, I did not interview any one who
“despised” the Church.

Another restrictionist, an American born and raised in Africa, entered the debate
through the population gate, but is very critical of the way some population restrictionists
approach the debate:

Reality is that if you have lived overseas, you know that there are billions. . .of real—all of
these are real people. They’re people who you can love, who I have loved. People who’s
only crime is they were bom poor, whose only crime was they were born into a country
that had no resources, or government that was corrupt. . .The environmental movement, I
think is—at some level—fundamentally broken in its thinking. . .If you go back to the
environmental movement, and you look at the great thinkers in this, the people like Paul
Erlich, a butterfly biologist, Garrett Hardin. . .probably had a greater impact on my thinking
than anyone that I’ve ever read, but Garrett’s basic work is in yeast, okay? Edward O.
Wilson on sociobiology—where a lot of the nativists start building their little weird empire
of thought. . .Well, he. . . [studied] ants. Bugs, yeast, and butterflies are not human beings,
and you can’t treat population dynamics as if they’re bugs. These are real. . .people, and if
you miss that, you miss the debate.

Criticisms like these are often sandwiched between sympathetic explanations.
Restrictionists explain that their colleagues are interested in population control because
they care about the quality of people’s lives: “Some of them sound “anti-people” because
they’re so population control, but a lot of them, you gotta understand, they see that as
pro-people, not anti-people. They want to keep women from having nine kids.”

As the preceding comments indicate, population restrictionists are not only
interested in reducing immigration levels. They’re also interested in limiting fertility (via
abortion, birth control, and family planning) and curbing the consumptive appetites of

Americans. In How Many Americans?, Leon Bouvier and Lindsey Grant summarize

172

what many restrictionists say: “Just as some Americans are “pro-children” but value
quality over quantity, so too some are “pro-immigrant and prefer quality over
quantity. . .It makes no sense to discuss birth control without considering
immigration. . .Both contribute to population growth...” (1994: 113).

The Tenth Anniversary Oral History Project of the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (interviews with five of the Federation’s original board members
and executives) is replete with references to lntemational Planned Parenthood and
Planned Parenthood. According to John Tanton, the founder of the Federation for
American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the first five board members and executive
director all “came out of the population and environmental movements” (FAIR Oral
History Project, Tanton: 34). For example, Sidney Swensrud, former chair of Gulf Oil,
was asked to join the board because another board member knew of his work at the
Association for Voluntary Sterilization and lntemational Planned Parenthood (FAIR Oral
History Project, Tanton: 30).

The assumption of a zero-sum resource base (where losses equal winnings)
requires that the United States curb its population growth by lowering immigration and
fertility levels. To some, these options may seem unattractive or immoral, but
nevertheless, re$trictionists argue, hard choices have to be made even if one’s heart and
mind tug opposite directions:

.. .because immigration accounts for up to 60% of our. . .annual growth. . .we just can’t be a
population organization and not address this issue. . .Our particular motive is that we just
can’t continue to accommodate this many people in our country, and it doesn’t matter
where they’re from. . .I didn’t start working here because I wanted to reduce immigration. I
started working here because I was interested in the environment. . .To be honest, there are
some things in life that sort of your head can agree with it, but it takes a lot of your heart to
get into it. . .Our country has a finite resource base, and eventually. . .if we continue to grow
and grow and grow. . .we’re just not gonna be able to accommodate it...

173

Restrictionists see expansionists as unwilling to confront the difficult choices offered by
nature. Increasing immigration levels evades a problem for which there is no technical
solution and aggravates the situation by allowing high-fertility countries to funnel their
“surplus populations” to the United States instead of dealing with their excess
populations (Garling 1970: 70). The U.S. has no choice but to lower immigration levels
and reduce the flow of illegal immigration if it is to curb population growth, both at home

and abroad.

Nationalism: Drawing Lines
In a world of limits, lines have to be drawn—not the kind synonymous with isolationism,
but the kind that clarify and advance national interests. The United States must assert its
sovereignty in the face of stark inequalities, international policy frameworks, and
migrations. The United States cannot serve as the world’s soup kitchen or population
safety valve, but can assist sending countries by holding them responsible for their own
domestic futures. Siphoning off their dissidents, professionals, and excess p0pulations
only circumvents self-sufficiency and responsibility. By providing them with foreign aid
(either directly or indirectly), the U.S. unwittingly contributes to the very problems it

seeks to relieve.

National Sovereignty

The United States cannot welcome every aspiring immigrant or admit all of the world’s
dispossessed if it hopes to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Drawing lines is not a
cruel exercise, but necessary and compassionate. One restrictionist explains that being

kind—his number one value—is congruent with immigration restriction:

174

The most important value I have is a very general thing. . .The one at the top is, as much as
possible, “Be kind.”. ..

Brian: So you see immigration policy as being kind in some ways. . .the kind of
immigration you would like to see?

Yeah, now see that’s an interesting problem because you run into the idea there that “Well,
if you’re gonna restrict immigration, aren’t you being unkind to other people?” But life is
a series of drawing lines and you have to draw lines with respect to whom you want to be
kind. And with respect to whom I want to be kind, it starts with the family, and then of
course, concentric circles outward. And so my most important area is my family, friends,
community here, and then extending outward. . .and I think the way to protect that is limit
population growth [italics added].

Restrictionists often stress that national borders represent, in some sense, the outskirts of
one’s obligations. They are not indifferent to the needs and desires of foreigners, but
generally maintain that their sense of responsibility generally ends at the U.S. border. As
one lobbyist put it, in a world of limits “you’ve got to demark what your responsibility is
to the group.” Some restrictionists argue that foreign governments must assume
responsibility for their own environmental and economic futures. Until they learn to
stabilize their populations, they cannot become self-sufficient. A restrictionist explains:

They’re unwilling to cut down their own population growth, or recognize the need to
stabilize population. . .so they expect the U.S. to serve as their safety valve and expect us to
take their “surplus population” who they can’t provide land or jobs for. . .This is not

right. . .However much the United States has meddled in Central American politics or
dominates these so-called banana republics of Central America, they’ve gotta take some
responsibility for their own demographic, population, environmental, economic, and social
future. And they’re not doing it. Rather, they’re using it as an opportunity to bad-

mouth. . .this country, rather than exercising some responsibility or restraint on their own
part. . .I don’t mean to imply that all of Latin America or all the Third World is like

that. . .Mexico is one country that has done a lot better, and in a sense, that’s because of a
long-standing break between the Catholic church hierarchy in Mexico and the politicians.
In a lot of Latin American countries, the two are much more wedded together. . .I

think. . .trying to step back and look at things from a logical or kind of a carrying capacity
perspective—population policies are the sort of very sensitive policies that can only be
established nation by nation. You can’t have a United Nations dictating to every nation
what its population should be. . .If a country is unwilling to recognize its problem and the
reality that the land and resources aren’t growing, jobs aren’t being created fast enough for
a growing population. . .with the ultimate goal of going toward a stable population—
because ultimately that’s the only thing that is sustainable economically and
environmentally forever if we want to stay around that long as a people—if a country is
unwilling to do that, then I don’t think it helps either that country or the U.S. over the long-
terrn to be providing that escape hatch and that safety valve for them.

Brian: A lesson not being taught?

175

Yeah, they don’t feel that kind of back pressure to deal with their demographic and
population problem and to get more serious about. . .population stabilization. . .So that. . .at
the most basic, fundamental, hypothetical, and theoretical level shows why you gotta have
some control on movements of people between different countries if one is concerned
about population growth as a causative factor in environmental decline and declining
quality of life...

This decision may seem unkind, but trying to evenly distribute the world’s resources is
not the answer. Accepting “surplus” populations and intervening in a country’s affairs
(e.g., by sending them foreign aid) will not solve the population problem. These well-

intentioned responses, in fact, usually exacerbate the situation.

Foreign Aid

In Living on a Lifeboat, Garrett Hardin contends that “sharing ethics lead to the tragedy
of the commons” and, for the foreseeable future, “survival demands that we govern our
actions by the ethics of a lifeboat” (1995: 39, 56). The world’s rich and poor reside in
comparatively rich and poor countries—about one-third and two-thirds, respectively.
Metaphorically, each rich nation is a full lifeboat and each poor nation an overcrowded
one. The poor continuously fall out of their lifeboats, swim to the rich lifeboats, and ask
for “admission” (i.e., the right to immigrate) or “handouts” (i.e., foreign aid).

Hardin asks the reader to imagine that the U.S. lifeboat contains fifty people, but
that the carrying capacity of the lifeboat, just to be generous, is sixty. This leaves little
room for natural disasters or new plant diseases, but for the sake of argument, the
carrying capacity of the American lifeboat is set at sixty. How should Americans
respond to the 100 people treading water outside of the lifeboat? Hardin offers three
options (1995: 37-38):

One. We may be tempted to live by the Christian ideal of being “our brothers keeper,” or
by the Marxian ideal (Marx 1875) of “from each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs.” Since the needs of all are the same, we take all the needy into our

176

boat, making a total of 150 in a boat with a carrying capacity of 60. The boat is swamped,
and everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe.

Two. Since the boat has an unused excess capacity of 10, we admit just 10 more to it. This
has the disadvantage of getting rid of the safety factor, for which action we will sooner or
later pay dearly. Moreover, which 10 do we let in? “First come, first, served?” The best
10? The neediest 10? How do we discriminate? And what do we say to the 90 who are
excluded?

Three. Admit no more to the boat and preserve the small safety factor. Survival of the
people in the lifeboat is then possible (though we shall have to be on our guard against
boarding parties).

More room cannot be created on the lifeboat because it only takes a few people to spoil
the commons. A voluntary system in which people restrain their consumptive and
reproductive habits in order to admit a few others is hardly possible in a world of
imperfect human beings. More room cannot be made, and exceeding the carrying
capacity of each nation will only lead to ruin.

Foreign aid in the form of a world food bank and “unrestricted immigration” will
not improve the situation. “World food banks move food to people, thus facilitating the
exhaustion of the environment of the poor. By contrast, unrestricted immigration moves
people to the food, thus speeding up the destruction of the environment in rich countries”
(1995: 51). The corrective feedback of starvation is “normal to any independent country
with inadequate population control” and is cut short by well-intentioned efforts to
alleviate starvation. “Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality
of life for subsequent generations” (1995: 44, 49, italics in original).

Anticipating the assertion that “justice is fairness” (e.g., see Weiner 1997: 174),
Hardin argues that Americans of non-Indian ancestry are “all the descendants of thieves,”
but contends that pure justice—the return of the land to descendants of the victimized—is
rejected because massive disorder would likely result. Statutes of limitations were

created for this very purpose. This situation is analogous to the inequitable distribution

177

of wealth: “We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all present peoples, so
long as people reproduce at different rates, because to do so would guarantee that our
grandchildren—everyone’s grandchildren—would only have a ruined world to inhabit”
(1995: 53-54).

Hardin’s outlook is shared by a number of restrictionists in that foreign
intervention is seen as counterproductive, and immigration as a threat to the American
lifeboat. William Paddock, one of the founding board members of FAIR, and later chair
of what is now Population-Environment Balance, argues that the world food problem
cannot be solved by agricultural research, but only by controlling population. Foreign aid
will not solve the problem and immigration makes it harder to conserve the U.S. resource

base:

While I was working at the National Academy of Sciences, I became fully aware of the
fact that there really was little interest in population. . .The United States is a most unique
country. It is not unique because of the kind of people it has. It is unique because of its
resources. I’ve already mentioned that half of the Grade A land in the world is in the
United States. . .To me it is impossible to visualize the kind of civilization that you and I
know without the world having the benefit of these enormous resources, which means we
must carefully husband them—not for the use of we Americans but for the very future of
our civilization. . .This country is overpopulated. There is no two ways about it. With
every new person that comes in, we must. . .divide up our resources still more—which
brings me back to immigrants being a threat...to...the survival of our civilization...l’ve
come to believe, the reason we’ve made so little progress on the population issue in the
world is due to a group of “do-gooders” in the world who really want to help everyone, but
unintentionally, cause more harm than good. To back up their point of view, the scientific
community which lives on public money for its research here and outside of the United
States. . .have used the population issue as an argument for more money. The argument
they give has some validity. More agricultural research means more production, more
food. Who wants to see the world starve? But something has to be done to shake the
world into recognizing that there is a need for a Draconian Action on the population issue.
We also need it at home. We’ve spent a trillion dollars in foreign aid. In thirty years, not
one of the developing countries has gotten off our backs. . .In the 19905, one-third of the
entire world’s population enters its reproductive years. That means another billion people
by 2000. By 2020 there will be seven billion. The world can’t support today’s five billion
so how are seven billion going to live? As many as possible will wrangle some means——
legal or illegal—to come here. They would be fools not to. In contrast, we’re the fools
who let Congress enact weak or ineffective immigration laws which are easily
circumvented, we are the fools who permit more and more to share our basic wealth, we
are the fools who believe our resources are inexhaustible. Lack of control of our borders

178

results in frittering away our resources, agricultural soils, minerals, hydrocarbons, etc. Its
not much different than the hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve frittered away in foreign
aid. Our laws should have the fundamental goal of protecting and conserving U.S.
resources for if the civilization we know is to continue, it must have, I repeat, must have
those resources on which to build its future (FAIR Oral History Project, Paddock: 9, 19-
21).

Virginia Abernethy (1997) suggests that a “sense of limits” is not acquired by other
countries because U.S. policies encourage foreign governments to rely on emigration for
the easement of their population pressures. The prospect of migrating to a more
prosperous territory “appears to be one factor supporting large family size.
Psychologically, the contrasting state is a sense of limits (being bottled up; crowding and
no expectation of relief)” (1997: 136). For restrictionists, a recognition of limits is
imperative if one is to properly diagnose and treat the problem of overpopulation.

Restrictionists generally maintain that the world’s resources cannot sustain the
world’s current population. The problem is more than a resource shortage or distribution
problem. The real problem is overpopulation. One restrictionist, referring to his work as
a Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines, put it this way: “. . .shortly after getting there
you realize they really don’t have much of a food shortage as they do—in Garrett
Hardin’s terms—a people longage.” Because the equal distribution of resources is either
impractical or impossible, people must acquire a sense of limits with respect to the
environment and economic opportunities.

An ethical system sensitive to this reality is needed. Criteria must be established,
lines have to be drawn. For population restrictionists, the lines are an inescapable fact of
life. One emphasizes that the Golden Rule (doing unto others as you would have done
unto you) needs to contextualized:

In thinking about the Golden Rule. . .how does it work in a global village?. . .If you could
tear your cloak in half, and both the beggar and you could derive a level of comfort and

179

warmth, well, then, that’s obviously the right thing to do. But if you have to tear your
cloak in a million worthless fragments, or a billion worthless fragments, then, you know,
just how do you evaluate that? How do we responsibly think through that? We all want to
do the right thing, and. . . you come down to trying to figure out, well, just who is it that has
a claim on your conscience? Who is that? Is it everybody in the world, is it everyone in
the universe? Or is it the family, is it your city, is it the people in your town, is it the
people in your country. . .how far does that go? And I got a hunch that we will find that
we’ll respond to that in different grades. In other words, we do have some responsibility to
people in foreign countries and all over the world and we will discharge that responsibility
with some level of care, but I have a greater sense of responsibility to my son, for
example. . .I have a personal sense that the single biggest and most prominent issue
confionting. . .our successors is our relationship to the resources that are here...

This greater sense of responsibility requires one to think about the present and future.
Preferences are natural in the sense that we love some people more than others.

People unwilling to accept this reality fi'ustrate some restrictionists. One explains
that hard choices need to be made and that they flow from normal attachments:

Someone who says “I love all mankind equally” is a person who really can’t love anyone
or anything because if you love everyone, or if you claim you love everyone, you really
end up loving no one. Love is something that’s directed towards specific people and
specific groups of people. That’s not to say you can’t love people outside of those

groups. . .Theodore Roosevelt said “A man who loves all nations as much as his own is like
a man who loves all women as much as his own wife”. . .I love my wife more than I love
other women, which doesn’t mean that I hate other women, but I love her more than I love
them. . .But these people who talk about borderless worlds and loving all humanity. . .they
really are saying the same thing. And what they are saying, really, is [that] they’re
incapable of loving anyone or anything—they’re above such attachments. And that’s the
mentality of these people...

Brian: Why do you think they think that way?

Pride. . .Of being above normal human attachments. . .The other side tries to give you the
idea that if you have these natural preferences, that you are a Nazi or a Fascist or whatever
words they throw at you. . .

These hard choices, however, are not only in the United States’ best interest, but in the
self-interest of other countries as well.

The emigration of highly skilled individuals from poor countries to rich countries
widens the gap between rich and poor. Affluent countries benefit at the expense of poor
countries. Some expansionists question the ethics of “brain drain” migration, but most of

the reservations are voiced by restrictionists. The United States, they argue, not only

180

attracts the “best and brightest,” but also “robs” countries of their “change agents.”
Excerpts from three population restrictionists typify this outlook:

I also believe that it’s [immigration] a terrible thing to do to these other countries. . .I think
it robs the brains of people who, if they didn’t have this outlet, would have channeled their
brain power into making things better for their own countrymen. . .It robs the change
agents. . .People in a lot of these other countries think, “Well, why put this effort into
making this community better? I may be able to get to America one day.”

There’s also what Roy Beck talks about is the “change drain”. . .The people who are
looking to better themselves—if they didn’t have that outlet they would look around
and...might, you know, make some revolution. In fact, Castro is the best example of that.
The dissidents—he was happy to get rid of. . .They’re all in Miami yelling at him. . .Those
are futile gestures, but if they were home, they might actually have been able to organize
some change.

Is it really legitimate that we take the brightest and the best and the change agents away
from these less developed countries? . .1 don't think that admitting immigrants is key to the
future of the United States any more than it is to any other nation. I’d say what’s more key
to our future is recognizing when the time for a certain course of public policy has passed
and revising it to fit the new realities and trying to get a moral fix on the whole thing so
that we don't damage other countries, say by admitting their brightest and best and further
accentuating the economic and social and political gap between the United Sates and less
developed countries, which in turn comes back to bite us as increased pressure for illegal
immigration. . .My contention is that the single most effective. . .forrn of foreign aid is to
help the best and brightest stay home rather than bail out...The point has been made that
by, for instance, accepting “refugees” from Cuba, we take the pressure off the Castro
regime. ..So I think the model for the future is Lech Walessa and Nelson Mandela—people
who stood and fought for the future of their countries and their fellow countrymen, rather
than just cut and ran for their own personal, short term, materialistic, sole interest. I think
it’s a moral and ethical question.

By characterizing immigrants and countries as self-seeking, restrictionists acknowledge
the value of some immigrants, but indirectly dispute expansionist depictions of
immigrants as “survivors.” Migrating to a more advantageous locale is a rational
decision, but that doesn’t mean the choice is honorable or in the sending country’s best

interest.

Conclusion
To restrictionists, immigration is more of a national question than a human one. The

health of the American culture, economy, environment, and polity supercedes the desires

181

of immigrants to enter the United States. Immigration is not a solution to the world’s
problems of overpopulation, government corruption, and asthmatic economies, but in
fact, contributes to each of these problems. The notion that the U.S. is somehow
exceptional or exempt from natural laws must be debunked, restrictionists argue, if the
government is ever going to establish immigration policies in harmony with human
nature and the environment. Until then, the country can expect higher levels of illegal
immigration, interethnic tension, and environmental degradation. In short, restrictionists

argue that the time has come to temporarily end the “American experiment.”

182

CHAPTER 6

EXPANSIONIST WORLDVIEWS

From the expansionist point of view, there are many reasons why the United States
should expand, or at least maintain, current immigration levels. Some expansionists
believe the American experience with immigration has benefited the country in countless
ways and will provide future dividends if properly managed. Other expansionists think
emigration and immigration are human rights, or at the very least, prerogatives worthy of
accommodation. Because “human beings are human beings,” people are entitled to
certain fi'eedoms regardless of where they live or where they were born. The
expansionist worldview collides with the restrictionist worldview in many areas.
Expansionists consider human nurture, not human nature, decisive in matters of human
ability and self-sacrifice. Instead of “drawing lines” around the country, the United
States should start erasing the “lines” that impede the circulation of human and financial
capital. By engaging globalism, the nation-state can stimulate economic productivity and

provide citizens and immigrants with virtually unmatched opportunities and freedoms.

Entry Points
Expansionists enter the immigration debate through a number of corridors, although two
passageways see more traffic than others. Many accentuate the current advantages of
immigration by defining immigrants as capital. In their minds, immigrants are a resource
to procure and manage. Other expansionists fix their eyes on American history‘and
highlight the historical benefits of immigration. Taken together, expansionists believe

the American experiment with immigration has been—and will continue to be—a key to

183

the country’s success. Although separated for ease of analysis, past and present
contributions of immigrants are usually intertwined in the assertions and ideas of

expansionists.

Immigrant Contributions

Expansionists normally see immigration in terms of augmentation (e. g., immigrants
contribute to the economy and enhance American culture), whereas restrictionists usually
view it in terms of depletion (e. g., immigrants deplete natural resources and strain race
relations). Immigrants represent a medley of resources to expansionists. By
strengthening the economy, enriching American culture, stimulating innovation, and
revitalizing traditional American values, immigrants satisfy national needs and stimulate
beneficial change.

Expansionists regularly emphasize such benefits, but libertarian expansionists are
particularly attentive to the economic advantages of immigration. They ask, why should
the United States only accept some kinds of capital and not others? Two self-described
libertarians put it this way:

...the point I always make is that immigration is really a great opportunity for the United
States because we’re the one nation in the world—in this race for capital, human and
investment capital—we’re the one nation in the world that can import both. . .See, one of
the reasons I think immigration has been such a benefit to the United States is the whole
cultural melting pot phenomenon. . .In my opinion, what happens is you get. . .almost a kind
of cultural Darwinism where essentially...we assimilate the best features of immigrant
culture and they assimilate the best features of ours. And so that you get this ever-evolving
culture that is very positive. . .For example. . .why are Americans so much more inventive
than people in Europe or Asia?. . .You know, a lot of those inventions [over the last 200
years] have been made by immigrants. . .The bringing together of people, all looking at
problems different ways-—because they come from different cultures—I think really
expands the innovation process. And again, you can’t measure that in any way. . .And
innovation is what really drives economic growth and productivity. . .Like, if you look at
this National Science Foundation report that just came out—I’m very skeptical of these
various kinds of economic models, you know, that say immigrants. ..increase the economy
by 10 billion dollars or something like that. Well, it’s impossible to measure the most
important benefit of immigration, which is the impact that they have on the whole process

184

of innovation and invention, and I really believe. . . if you could properly take that into
account, then they’re off by orders of magnitude. . .Immigrants are not just more people,
they’re people that are self-selected that bring in skills and talents that we don’t have, and
yet these models just treat the immigrants as additional people.

I view labor as a commodity, like any other, and just as I believe in free trade of television
sets and cars and anything else, I believe in free trade of labor. . .I would take the Wall
Street Journal view of open borders. . .which is not to say that I couldn’t see problems. . .I
may change my mind if a lot of problems develop, but at this point, I would advocate a
position of. . .open borders. . .

With the exception of favoring open borders, these sentiments are fairly representative of
libertarian expansionists. Contrary to the arguments of some restrictionists,
expansionists—including libertarians—rarely support open borders. Some argue for a
more open border, but few subscribe to the editorial position of the Wall Street Journal:
“Our view is, borders should be open” (cited in Isbister 1996: 5). This issue is later
raised under the rubric of globalization.

Expansionists are generally satisfied with the economic contributions of
immigrants. Some, however, question the ethics of “brain drain” migration. The director
of a foster care program for unaccompanied refugee minors describes her misgivings:

“. . .we have an immigration policy that tends to drain off all the educated and successful
and intelligent of other nations. . .and if you’re real liberal, you have a lot of concerns
about doing that.” Similar misgivings are sometimes aired, but most expansionists are
basically content with the arrangement: “. . .some people. . .say it’s skimming the cream
and so forth, but. . .if we want the United States. . .to be the global superpower, then we
ought to exploit this opportunity we have with immigration.”

Immigration not only promotes national interests in a global economy, but can
also mend national problems and renew traditional American values. One expansionist

thinks immigration is “the key to the future of race relations in the United States.” By

185

building bridges to local civil rights coalitions, women’s coalitions, churches,
conservatives, and labor unions, local immigration coalitions have the capacity to
rejuvenate communities and nurture interracial cooperation. Other expansionists believe
immigration restores values once characteristic of native-born Americans.

Unlike many Americans, immigrants capitalize on available opportunities and
appreciate their newfound freedom. One congressional staffer put it this way:

I think that immigrants kind of perpetuate and revitalize traditional American values. I
think immigrants come here because they respect freedom and they want opportunities.
And I think that natives tend to take some of those things for granted very much and I think
it’s good for the country and for the culture to have a significant body of people who
genuinely appreciate the freedom and opportunity and equality under the law. And I think
that rubs off on the rest of us and helps to perpetuate those values. . .It helps preserve the
values that the country is founded on.

Brian: Like what?

Hard work, appreciating an opportunity, the opportunity to succeed. . .appreciating
freedom, understanding that freedom only comes at a high price and that it’s a precious
thing and that it’s not to be taken for granted—that we have to be willing to sacrifice for it.
Many of these people come from places where you don't have freedom and people are
dying trying to get it. And I think it is important for us to be reminded of that. . .And I
think they have good values beyond that. They tend to be religious people, their families
tend to be more intact than American families, and they tend to work harder.

Some expansionists especially admire the strength, perseverance, and work ethic of
refugees. Unlike Americans, refugees are willing to start at the bottom and seize
opportunities. Observations from three administrators, the first by a 1979 Vietnamese
refugee, extol the efforts of refugees and (directly or indirectly) chide natives for their
complacency:
...people say the refugee come here to take their jobs from them. The refugee come
here—they have no English. They was reborn again, they start all over. . .how can they
take the job away from Americans who born here, fluent in the language. . .? Why don’t
they get the job? And I think that. . .they don’t have the job that the refugee have now
because they don’t try hard, I think. I think they learn to take things for granted too much

and the opportunity is here and why the refugee can have the job they want?. . .They have
to have somebody to blame—that’s what I think.

Refugees come here with absolutely nothing, they are stronger than most Americans and
they have a lot more perseverance.

186

The handicap of the refugee—with culture and language—is accommodated, gladly, by an
employer, for the kind of support that that refugee is given in his employment. ..They’re
interested in figuring out the American system and they’re willing to start at the bottom of
an entry-level job. . .It’s quite remarkable...

Expansionist observations sometimes portray America as a leaky bucket and immigrants
as stoppers. Immigrants arrest the seepage of values and ultimately become a part of the
bucket, reinforcing its strengths and moderating it deficiencies. More than beneficial,
their values and perspectives are almost vital. If the American work ethic cannot be
restored from within then an external solution must be sought.

Business and libertarian expansionists regularly advance such arguments.
Discerning a deflating work ethic, they commend immigrants for their willingness to
work hard and reproach Americans for their ingratitude and complacency:

You know, anyone who is willing to hop on some leaky boat and cross ninety miles of
shark-infested water just to come here and work—I’d say that makes you an American. . .I
don’t care if you don’t speak English. . .that alone. . .makes you more of an American than
anybody who was born here and has no appreciation for the country.

I think there are certain low immigration groups, and I think, talking about the skilled side
now——the mathematicians and the computer workers—there are certain people who have
been displaced in the current economy and are blaming that on immigration. In talking
with [company representatives]—these workers who have been displaced—either they
can’t be trained because you can’t just move a computer person from one computer
language to another. . .without years of retraining, and also there are people who, you
know, when the opportunities were presented to them to take advantage of the billions of
dollars companies spend on retraining their own workers, they don’t take advantage of

it. . .And so people don’t take the initiative to keep up their skills and then they’re
displaced. Well, there’s not a lot you can do about that.

For expansionists, the very act of migration can signify a bright future. Immigrants, they
say, are “self-selected” in that they already possess characteristics indicative of future
success—risk taking, motivation, and a willingness to work hard. This, along with the
propensity to exert more effort than natives (Simon 1989: 97-100), enhances the overall
attractiveness of immigrants. This is especially true of highly skilled immigrants, who

solidify America’s technological edge and (among other things) keep Silicon Valley on

187

the San Francisco peninsula. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), chair of the Senate
immigration subcommittee, explains: “If we can’t hire these talented people and bring
them here now, foreign competitors can and will. If American companies can’t bring the
talent here to fill their needs. . .they’ll move some of their operations overseas” (Wilgoren
1998).

This line of thinking is typical of libertarian and business expansionists. The
American experience with immigration has been, and is, mutually beneficial. So why,
they ask, should the United States reduce its current intake of immigrants? Ending the
symbiotic relationship between Americans and firture Americans impedes the progress of
both populations. Equipped with history and empirical research, expansionists argue that
America’s experiment with immigration will—if properly managed—generally serve the

interests of Americans and Americans in the making.

The American Experiment

Repeated investments in immigration have generated valuable returns. Like a mutual

fund brochure, expansionists caution that historical performance does not guarantee

future results, but emphasize the strengths of the prospectus. Unlike most countries, the

United States transforms diversity into a strength and enjoys an almost unrivaled level of

prosperity and political stability. True, immigration is an experiment, but it’s also one

backed by a reassuring history of overall success. Throughout its short history the United

States has benefited greatly from immigration—why discontinue a successful tradition?
Expansionists generally see past achievements as indicative of future success.

The status of “experiment” should not dissuade Americans from venturing a small risk.

Two prominent expansionists explain:

188

A lot of what drives me is a faith that immigrants, by and large, are gonna turn out to be
great Americans, good solid Americans. . .There’s a faith. . .You know, it is an experiment
after all—so there’s some faith involved that it’s gonna work out. . .Generosity,

tolerance. . .they’re manmade, they’re not divinely given from my perspective, so you have
to acquire them, you have to practice them. So we immigration enthusiasts [expansionists]
take very sincerely this notion that if you cutoff immigration, we would stop practicing
and giving life to those values in the same way, that if we let the pessimists [restrictionists]
win, that we as a society will lose some of our spirit, and it’s that spirit which infuses what
we do .. .We acquire it as a nation by being generous, in our self-interest. . .I see the
restrictionist impulse in this country, which has a strong tradition, to be a very self-
referential, you know, “I’m first.” I mean, their code is “Let’s take care of our own and
let’s take care of me first.” And. . .if that is what this country is about, we will be a poorer
country in every sense of the word. Whereas when we don’t, when we say “Wait a minute,
we’re bigger than just ourselves——maybe we’re better off by extending ourselves out and
by allowing and engaging and struggling.” And I just think that. . . is the genius of America,
that dynamism, and that flexibility, and that diversity. To me, I look at the United States as
a classic example of a society built on those values and immigration being so central, such
a defining element, of who we are as a nation and that American exceptionalism is built on.
I mean, diversity is a threat in most places in the world, and here it’s an asset because the
bonds of unity are strong enough to tolerate and to actually transform the diversity into a
source of creativity that allows more and better solutions than would have been had we all
been from the same place and we lived in a more closed-off society. ..

.. .Let’s be real romantic about this. I think it’s a great American tradition and I think
immigrants coming to America and trying to pursue the American dream. . .provides us
with a constant reminder of what it means to be American. In some ways, the most
American people are those who are born abroad and come here and really believe in this
country deeply—in ways that people born here can’t or don’t understand. . .I worry that if
there were no immigrants, we would lose a sense of who we are as a people. . .And what
links us as a people is a set of political beliefs, a set of principles, and a commitment to an
idea, a dedication to a proposition, and I think a constant infusion of new blood reminds us
of that, because if we didn’t have it, I think we might actually drift towards being more of
an ethnic kind of nation.. .For a debate that’s filled with numbers and fiscal impact
statements and this and that, I think this speaks way beyond any of it, and is the most
absolute, most compelling reason. Now, that doesn’t tell us we need to have a million
immigrants a year or two hundred thousand immigrants a year—it says we need to have
immigration, so it doesn’t speak to numbers, but it does speak to a flow.

Immigration carries a degree of risk, but so does postponing or ending it. Why

discontinue immigration when it has in fact been—as one expansionist put it—“a

godsend”? Restrictionist arguments for a temporary moratorium or replacement-level

policy strike expansionists as risky, unnecessary, selfish, or simply unrealistic.

Restrictionists criticize expansionists for their faith in the American experiment.

Their beliefs, they contend, are emotional and irrational. But for expansionists, critiques

189

like these symbolize the indecency of restrictionist arguments. Variations of the phrase
“human beings are human beings” are regularly repeated. Treating human beings like
numbers is inhumane. Quotas and the national interest are legitimate topics, but other
considerations need to be considered. As the executive director of one organization put
it: “Henry Kissinger once said that countries have interests, not friends, and I think that’s
a very sad way of looking at the world. . .if we all functioned just as having interests and
not friends, what kind of human beings would we be?”

An expansionist critical of both restrictionists and expansionists (and incidentally,
the one who suggested the terms “expansionist” and “restrictionist”) criticizes
restrictionists for their calculator-like approach to immigration. To him, their calls for a
moratorium (e.g., by Peter Brimelow, Carrying Capacity Network, and Negative
Population Growth) breathe an air of absurdity:

.. .every time anyone has ever advocated a moratorium on immigration. . .that is to

say. . .none, zero, I’ve always said “Well, what about Klinger?” Do you remember
Klinger?

Brian: From M*A*S*H?

Yes. . .What happened to Klinger at the end of the show?. . .He married Soon-Lee. . .It’s
important to understand just how typical this is. In the first place, the government did not
choose that this Korean woman was going to go live in Toledo, Ohio. An American
soldier did. Those who argue a moratorium, and attempt to mean it—the word means
“zero,” “none,” “stop immigration”—what that means in practical terms is a soldier like
Klinger who falls in love with a foreigner like Soon-Lee, could not bring her to live in his
hometown of Toledo, Ohio. By falling in love with a foreigner, in order for him to obey
his marriage vows, he’s going to have to live in exile from the United States. Never go to
another Mudhen’s game. Immediately, when I say this, people say, “Well, of course not,
that’s not what I meant.” I said, “Okay, you’re not talking about zero now, you’re talking
about 200,000 a year.

Brian: Why 200,000?

Because that’s. . .the number of spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens coming in as
immigrants. . .In other words, you can have an abstract discussion about it and it will make
no sense. If you’re gonna have a real discussion about it, that’s how to do it.

Removing emotion and faith from the policy process is not only impractical, but can

potentially weaken the American “spirit” responsible for much of the United States’

190

success. Expansionists ask, where would the U.S. be economically and culturally if it
were not for immigration?

Expansionists indirectly answer this question by asserting that immigrants expand
the country’s strength and creativity. It is one of the keys to American success. Another
pair of distinguished expansionists explain:

I think people who oppose firrther restrictions do that on the basis of real life experiences

in communities where immigration is an important part of family dynamics or in the high
tech industry. . .or people committed to. . .the concept that we’re a nation of immigrants, and
you know, it’s part of what has made America strong and vibrant is the energy, and

creativity, and risk taking that comes from...newcomers coming in and bringing their
talents.

I fundamentally am very hard-nosed American. . .The anti-immigrant side has got it wrong.
The most pro-American thing you could possibly do would be to have immigration better
managed, better formulas. . .because ultimately that is the secret.

Brian: Secret?

That American success is indeed immigration. That is a value, that’s an ideal, that’s a, you
know, call it. . .intemationalist, but it’s not religion. It is not political party allegiance

. ..This is where all of your experience, all of your intelligence, all of your studying, all of
your interviews, all of your interactions with people on this debate—all of it gives you that
essential optimism.

A joint study by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institute, American Immigration Institute, and
Hudson Institute questioned 38 distinguished U.S. economists in 1990 about the impact
of legal and illegal immigrants on the American economy. Asked “What is the major
economic effect of immigration to the United States?,” the reply of world-renowned
economist John Kenneth Galbraith captures the essence of expansionist arguments: “We
all look back with favor on our past immigration policies and what they have done for us.
It is deeply inconsistent that we think the future to be different... Why is it that what
contributed so much in the past should be questioned in the present?” (Cato Handbook
for Congress: 1997, italics added).

From the perspective of expansionists, the American experiment with

immigration benefits immigrants and the United States. Immigrants are afforded

191

unparalleled opportunities and the country receives a return that is, in many respects,
immeasurable. One expansionist put it simply: “I am beginning to see. . .more and more
the beauty of it. This country would not be the same without immigration.” Compared to
the risks of discontinuing the tradition, the risks of continuing immigration are negligible.
However, financial metaphors cannot capture the entire expansionist worldview.
The implied comparisons describe their views on immigrant resources, but the idea of
“human nurture” better represents their perceptions of refugees and natural resources.
For some expansionists, natural resources and national economies are not bound by the
rules of a zero-sum game, where losses equal winnings. Technological progress, nurtured
by human intelligence and ingenuity, creates positive-sum (win-win) situations. In the
case of refugees, the metaphor of human nurture is more straightforward—desperate

humans merit human nurture, irrespective of cost.

Human Nurture
Expansionists tend to see more “nurture” than “nature” in human potential. Because
there is a clear, positive-sum element to natural resources, humans can exceed natural
“limits” by nurturing inventiveness—by empowering people to tap the “ultimate
resource”—the human mind. Over time, and in terms of decreasing prices and increasing
substitutability (of resources), humans have been expanding the world’s resource base
(Simon 1996). Humans also enhance humanity by nurturing it directly. Expansionists
insist “human beings are human beings” and believe that refugees, in particular, deserve

special attention.

192

Human Ingenuity

Expansionists generally hold positive-sum views of the world with respect to natural
resources, employment, and immigration quotas. Unlike the zero-sum views of
restrictionists, where losses equal winnings, expansionists see win-win scenarios.
Immigrants entering the U.S. economy do not necessarily displace native-born workers,
but in fact, often expand the opportunities of native-born workers.

For example, a review of industry-specific case studies by Fix and Passel (1994)
demonstrates that immigrants, even in highly skilled occupations, rarely displace native
workers. Specific jobs in low-wage industries are “segmented in a manner that assigns
different positions to differing ethnic groups, immigrant groups, or both, thus mitigating
displacement” (1994: 51, italics added). Additionally, some domestic industries have
remained in the United States precisely because there is an abundance of immigrant
workers. By keeping their Operations in the U.S., immigrants preserve jobs for some
low-skilled native-workers in various regions (1994: 52). Furthermore, even when
immigrant hiring networks do exclude native-born workers, these recruitment procedures
tend to concentrate immigrants in certain industries, thereby “reducing the extent of
competition with natives and potentially expanding natives’ opportunities in other
sectors” (1994: 52).

Whereas restrictionists primarily see humans in reductive terms (e. g., additional
humans reduce the quality of life for future generations), expansionists (particularly
libertarian expansionists) see human beings in additive terms. Here is how three
expansionists interpret the relationship between humans and natural resources:

I’m more a Julian Simon person. I value human ingenuity. I think we can get ourselves
out of tight fixes. I wouldn’t like to consider myself overly-optimistic, but I think people
are remarkably quite clever and I think Julian Simon is right—you know, the ultimate

193

resource is up here in our heads. And I certainly don’t think we will always have cars that
run on gas, you know, something better will come along. I don’t know what it will be, but
someone will figure it out. I think the kinds of natural resource controversies we have fifty
years from now are gonna be completely different from what they are today. They’re
gonna be completely unexpected. We don’t know what they’re gonna be and when we get
to them, we’ll figure it out.

...this Donald Huddle research. ..is. . . just total junk science. . .It’s so flawed and it’s. . .this
kind of zero-sum—you know, “That every immigrant who comes in takes a job from a
native and then the native goes on welfare”—and all these ridiculous assumptions that are,
you know, preposterous. . .It sounds cliche, but we’re in a kind of globalized economy right
now where the whole notion of scarcity of resources is nonsense. I mean, we’re not
running out of food or energy or oil—the things that people use to worry about. In high
technology. . .the idea of limits to growth are kind of outmoded, but the two things that
really are scarce as we move into the twenty-first century economy are investment capital
and human capital. And investment capital is something that flows across borders
instantaneously and it flows to wherever it’s treated most kindly. And the same thing is
now happening with human capital—that human capital also tends to migrate where it has
the highest rate of return.

[Restrictionist] organizations mostly. . .believe in the whole thing of “fixed pie” theory—
that we have limited resources, we only have so many square miles of land in this country,
you know. . .you can only fit so many cars on the roads. . .that we need time to expand our
infrastructure before we can accommodate, comfortably, more people. . .the position that
more people are not necessary for economic growth, that having more people in the
country doesn’t necessarily benefit the country. . .that’s the attitude. . .The position of the
high immigration groups would be. . .that [immigrants] are a resource, that they contribute
to an economy. . .If someone were giving you gold, you wouldn’t turn it away because you
say, “Well, I have too much”—there’s no such thing as too much wealth. ..Human beings
are essentially wealth, they are a resource, and they shouldn’t be looked upon as a
burden.. .The United States is not, by any means, overcrowded...We have more room in
this country than we will ever use.. .and. . .the whole debate over national resources is
really false because new technologies emerge, different resources are discovered...

To restrictionists, banking on human ingenuity is an unnecessary risk. Instead of relying

on the human ability to get “out of tight fixes,” they ask: why not accept the scientific

truism that growth cannot occur forever on a finite resource base?

But some expansionists, particularly libertarian expansionists, are not convinced.

Their skepticism of finiteness is largely based on the data and logic submitted by Julian

Simon. The late economist maintained that “natural resources are not finite in any

economic sense” (1996: 6). According to Simon, finiteness cannot be determined

because the cosmos cannot be measured. The hypothesis of finiteness cannot be proved

194

or disproved because the theory is not amenable to scientific inquiry, but only to
metaphysical speculation. In the absence of such data, shortages must be gauged in other
ways (1986: 184-215; 1990: 67-77). “The appropriate measures of scarcity (the costs of
natural resources in human labor, and their prices relative to wages and to other goods)
all suggest that natural resources have been becoming less scarce over the long run, right
up to the present” (1996: 3). Contrary to the arguments of some restrictionists, Simon
never argued that “infinite substitutability” is possible—now or in the firture. Rather, he
maintained that substitutability has been increasing over time. There “have been more
and cheaper substitutes for each raw material with the passage of time” (1996: 596-97).

But how can this be? Simon admitted that his analysis is not commonsensical,
but repeatedly demonstrated the plausibility of his perspective with historical data.
Simon summarized his seven hundred plus page book, The Ultimate Resource 2, this
way:

In the short run, all resources are limited. . .The longer run, however, is a different story.
The standard of living has risen along with the size of the world’s population since the
beginning of recorded time. There is no convincing reason why these trends toward a
better life should not continue indefinitely. Many people find it difficult to accept this
economic argument. Dwindling resources, increasing population, starvation and misery—
all this seems inevitable unless we curb population growth or otherwise cut back
consumption of natural resources. . .The new theory that is the key idea of the book—and is
consistent with current evidence—is this: Greater consumption due to an increase in
population and growth of income heightens scarcity and induces price run-ups. A higher
price represents an opportunity that leads investors and business people to seek new ways
to satisfy the shortages. Some fail, at cost to themselves. A few succeed, and the final
result is that we end up better off than if the original shortage problems had never arisen.
That is, we need our problems, though this does not imply that we should purposely create
additional problems for ourselves. The most important benefit of population size and
growth is the increase it brings to the useful stock of knowledge. Minds matter
economically as much as, or more than, hands or mouths. Progress is limited largely by
the availability of trained workers. In the long run the basic forces influencing the state of
humanity and its progress are. . .the number of people who are alive to consume, but also to
produce goods and knowledge... and. . .the level the wealth. Those are the great variables
which control the advance of civilization (1996: 12-13, italics in original).

195

The human mind, then, is the “ultimate resource.” Through supply and demand
mechanisms, a larger population creates a short term demand for more resources, which
in turn, raises prices. A larger population (in a free society) will eventually hit upon a
solution because, all things being equal, a larger population produces a larger amount of
knowledge. In many cases, humans have apparently filled their niche (i.e., seemingly
reached the limit of obtainable resources), only to expand it. “There are limits at any
moment, but the limits continually expand, and constrain us less with each passing
generation. In this we are quite unlike all other animals” (1996: 382-83).

Simon agrees with Garrett Hardin (and other population restrictionists) that
population growth does cause some problems. However, the agreement ends here.
Hardin sees population growth as a problem in and of itself because (1) there is a fixed
resource base and (2) the relationship between humans and natural resources cannot be
solved technically. Simon, on the other hand, sees population growth as a temporary
problem. Population-induced problems encourage new developments which, in the end,
“leave us better of than if the problems had not arisen” (1996: 383, italics in original).
Population growth contributes, directly and indirectly, to progress.

Not surprisingly, Simon saw immigration in additive terms. Immigrants stimulate
demand and innovation because improvements in productivity spring from human
ingenuity and because immigrants enlarge the U.S. population (via migration and
fertility). They create cultural variety, “a key ingredient of invention,” and transport
innovative ideas (1989: 166, 174-182). Without ever mentioning Julian Simon, one
expansionist refers to the transference of political ideas:

. . .one of the things I understood twelve years ago. . .was that people from other countries
no longer just send money back home—they send ideas back home—political remittances.
Hey, you want to build democracy and freedom abroad? Work with immigrants here,

196

 

family to family, fiiend to friend, colleague to colleague—it’s not just about
governments. . .And it’s not just economics, not just trade. It also has to do with values and
politics and human rights movements, etcetera.

Natives are not the only ones who benefit from immigration. So do immigrants and their
relatives. Even democracy benefits. “The migration of people from poor to rich
countries is as close to an everybody-wins government policy as can be” (Simon 1996:
7). Recognizing that human progress ultimately hinges on the output of human nurture,
and not the initial input (or regenerative capacity) of nature, why tamper with this win-
win scenario?

Many expansionists see a comparable world—even if they are unfamiliar with
Simon’s work. To the extent they consider population growth relatively harmless or
believe human ingenuity can regularly overcome nature’s “limits,” their views generally
synchronize with his ideas. Unlike restrictionists, expansionists are, at the most, only
mildly concerned about population size. There has to be limits, but stringent guidelines
are not the answer. Asked about annual immigration quotas, two expansionists
emphasize the need for flexibility:

I think it would float, kind of like the dollar floats against the yen. I think it would float
depending on circumstances. ..So, in terms of quotas, there does need to be a cap on the
number of people we can absorb per year, but within that cap we need to show some
flexibility. . .Circumstances change. The world isn’t the same tomorrow...

...I wouldn’t set a number. There’s nothing magical anywhere in the immigration formula.
It has to develop in an understanding of what the category is. . .Fundamentally, the system
is okay. I’d like to see, again, less reliance on categories and more reliance on people that
nobody else wants. In the end, nobody wants refugees. We’re the only people, who at
some level, still think that we would want refugees.

Predominantly concerned with the economic and social impacts of immigrants,

expansionists enjoy the benefits of flexibility. Unrestrained by notions of carrying

197

capacity and replacement, expansionists are able to convert this pliancy into political

leverage.

Where restrictionists find it difficult to compromise, expansionists are able to
make trade-offs. Flexibility is the not a byproduct of relativism, but an intentional
strategy to capitalize on the perceived inflexibility of restrictionists:

On any issue you can find members who don’t agree with other members...and because
immigration does attract odd bedfellows, we try to be flexible so that if conservatives like
legal immigration, but they don’t like welfare, we’ll work with them on legal immigration
and we won’t work with them on welfare. We’ll work with liberal groups who want to
defend benefits for legal immigrants. . .From our point of view, the goal is to be successful
in action, and given the strange dynamics of this issue and then all of the sub-issues that
attract different supporters and opponents, if we’re not flexible, then we’re ineffective...
They [restrictionists] have, I think, a taller mountain to climb than we do. On the other
hand, that’s in terms of their objectives. . .They overreached [in 1996] in terms of what they
wanted. They went for it all. . .They’re so set on, say a moratorium or something very
significant like that, that the idea of whittling away, little by little, doesn’t appeal to

them. . .They’re not willing to work in increments. At least, they haven’t shown a
willingness. As a result, they’re marginalizing themselves as the pendulum swings back.
See, we made a lot of concessions. . .and we ended up being more effective and now we’re
whittling away at what they got. . .The things you feel most strongly about—those are the
things that are most likely for you to get involved in some advocacy. So, the people who
are drawn to work on these issues feel very strongly and very righteous. But the thing that
draws them to the cause can be a liability if you can’t override it somewhat. You gotta
maintain the motivation, and at the same time. . .lift your gaze from your own righteous box
and be able to see a bigger picture. . .That’s the dilemma. . .you need the righteousness to
get you to fight for the cause. . .and the flexibility to. . .not be so dogmatic that in a
democratic system you lose your effectiveness and are outside looking in. . .And for the
restrictionists to be effective, that’s what it requires—that’s what I think it requires for
them. 1 am thrilled that they’re more interested in being right than being effective, that
they’re so convinced that they have the prescription that they are not taking advantage of
what they could take advantage of, given the context we’re operating in.

Expansionist dismissals of population warnings, and optimistic predictions, make
pliability, in a sense, more workable. Unlike restrictionists, who find small reductions in
immigration unacceptable, expansionists are more willing to make concessions. Some
expansionists “tolerate” the plasticity and turn it into a political strategy. These same

expansionists, however, also confront unyielding limits. For example, their flexibility

with immigrant-related issues is generally not extended to refugee-related matters.

198

Refugees
Among expansionists there exists a firm commitment to admitting and assisting needy
refirgees. For some, this conviction doubles as an entry point, but for others, it simply
belongs to a wider web of beliefs about human rights and responsibilities. Experiences
and/or some set of religious beliefs usually forge their sense of duty toward refugees.
Some expansionists accentuate the survival and aspirations of refugees. Real-life
observations and refugee accounts provide compelling images. Volunteering at a refugee
camp for Vietnamese refugees in the late 19703, a prominent expansionist recounts his
first impression:
And I was more captivated by the Vietnamese, not from an immigration point of view, but
more, you know, it was just so compelling that people were risking their life. . .And when I
started working with refugees it. . .really impacted my thinking to see people risking their
lives a) to leave a country that they grew up in, and b) wanting so desperately to go to

America. . .

Some expansionists recite stories of refugee survival. When deserving refirgees are
denied admittance or legitimate asylum claims are rejected, one social worker “sees
faces.” Relaying a story provided by one of her clients, she explains:

We have a Bosnian girl whose both parents were murdered—her mother was raped to
death, and her father was a surgeon and just died in a bomb attack, but then that made mom
and the two daughters very vulnerable to attack by the Serb military. They came regularly
to rape the girls and mom, and finally mom just died from injuries of being beaten and
raped and the girls were held captive almost a year and used as a concubine for the
military, basically. And she’s says on one occasion they took her to a house

where. . .a. . .girl [had] gotten pregnant. And so in front of her, the military killed the girl
and removed the fetus and killed it in front of them and said “If you get pregnant, this is
what’ll happen to you.” As if though her getting pregnant or not was within her control
with repeated rapes. . .And this is a fifteen year old girl. And like I said. . .how can

people?. . .

Unable to finish without crying, a prior comment will have to suffice: “I don’t care what
our standard of living would be, we will always have problems.” For she and other

expansionists, people fleeing these realities deserve help regardless of cost.

199

 

While many are moved more by empathy and emotion, some cite religious
reasons for assisting refugees. A Christian, Jew, and Muslim emphasize the principles
and perspectives of their faiths:

I know Christ was a refirgee, and what would have happened if when his family fled with
him as an infant, if he was pushed back across the border, to be massacred with all the
other children under one?. . .I think you can apply a lot of refugee work to. . .basic Christian
principles about feeding the hungry...

As a religious community, we have religious values. The Bible says. . . you were a stranger
in Egypt. . .We have this whole religious imperative. I don’t think about it on my day to
day work, but it definitely underlies the work that’s there. As a Jewish community, we’ve
always taken care of our own. . .I think there’s definitely a religious and moral imperative
for us to help the downtrodden. . .and I think that underlies probably every single piece of
work that we do...There’s a real value to treating the stranger in Judaism...

I don’t think that...God makes any distinction. In Islam it is very clear—human beings are
human beings. If someone is in a difficult situation we try to help them. . .Yeah we’re
trying to help a group of people that we share an affinity with. Our motivation isn’t so
much just to help these people for any self-serving reason aside from [having] God pleased
with us...

Although most expansionists are not “religious” in terms of beliefs and affiliations, their
views on refugee assistance seem almost sacred. While immigration extracts strong
opinions, refugee admissions evokes undiluted beliefs, and in some cases, even
dissension.

Some expansionists scrutinize the practices of their colleagues in the same way
that some cultural restrictionists criticize the views and tactics of population
restrictionists. Already displeased with U.S. refugee policy, some expansionists worry
that the already stingy system will be trimmed on account of imprudent behavior. One

prominent expansionist put it bluntly:

I believe our side is too dominated by special interests. That’s a charge that FAIR makes.
I think there’s truth to it—l don’t think it’s true as they make it, but I think there’s some
truth to it, and the primary example of that is in the refugee area—not the only example,
but the primary example of that where you’ve had—particularly in the last six or seven
years—Jewish communities dominating the refirgee policy arena. In my view, absolutely,
totally irresponsible in the last 3 or 4 years. Ironically, the Jews are destroying the U.S.
refugee program and they’re destroying it through selfishness. And the selfishness

200

epitomized by HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the leading Jewish refugee
organization, which is using the power of the Jewish community to sustain what’s called
the Lautenberg Amendment—which means if you’re a Soviet Jew—this was enacted first
in ’89—1 thought it was justified in ’89 for probably 3 or 4 years—you don’t have to prove
that you have a well-founded fear of persecution. You simply have to prove that you are a
Jew, and there’s a presumption you’re entitled to refugee status to admission to the United
States. Well, what we have now is a refugee program that is dominated by the Jewish
flow, the remnants of the Indo-Chinese flow. . .maybe 40% of the refugees. ..in the last five
or six years have been Soviet Jews. . .Well, the problem is they have Israel. That’s problem
number one. They’re not in danger the way other people are in danger—like Africans.
Second, you always have Israel as a place of safe haven for Jews. Doesn’t mean Jews
shouldn’t come to the United States, it just means there is a safety option that other
refugees don’t enjoy. You can’t come here as a Jewish refugee unless you got relatives in
the United States—that’s how the community self-selects. ..So, it’s a back door family
immigration program for family relatives that couldn’t get in because the relationship’s too
distant under the current family visa program. And the government is subsidizing it
dramatically because if you’re a refugee you’re eligible for welfare. . .Now, Lautenberg is
about to be extended again. This is now 1997. Excuse me, we’re sending foreign aid to
Russia. Sure, there’s still anti-Semitism in Russia. Sure, there’s still racism in Los
Angeles too. And I’m not saying Soviet Jews who really are facing serious problems
shouldn’t be able to get out and a fair proportion coming to the United States—but that’s
not what the deal is. . .You’ve got thousands of people who’ve been granted refugee travel
documents coming to the United States who aren’t leaving Russia—who are staying
there—and this is just like their ticket to safety in case they need it in the future. . .But
that’s an African whose spot has been taken, who’s dying in the Rwandan jungle...

While more candid than most expansionists, others allude to similar concerns.
References to “powerful constituencies,” “African refugees,” and “real refugees” are
standard. Criticisms of current practices are primarily directed at refugee
mismanagement, not Jewish misuse. A concern for threatened lives is so important to
expansionists that they are willing to criticize (directly or indirectly) their own
colleagues—a rarity.

Lives, and accurate information, are both at stake. The public has enough trouble
distinguishing legal from illegal immigration, let alone refugees:

...I have always been a very, very harsh person on refugees. I believe in saving people
who need saving, not in saving people by designating entire categories, entire nationalities,
as needing saving. Not everybody who wants to leave Cuba needs saving. Not everybody
who wants to leave the former Soviet Union, or any of the republics, needs saving. I mean,
this is an extraordinary grant. . .That’s why you have all this confusion about immigration.

201

For a group proud of its ability to overlook differences and converge on shared interests,
this small fissure demonstrates just how important refirgee admission are to
expansionists. More than a catchphrase, “human beings are human beings” is a core
value.

Expansionists regularly contend that the application of refugee policy is largely
bereft of generosity and fairness. The annual number of refugees admitted to the United
States is miserly, and of those permitted to enter, only a few are “real refugees.” The
United States, does a “paltry amount given the worldwide demand” and ought to “start
bringing real refugees” into the country. The “real refugees” are largely concentrated in
Afiica, but few will ever be accommodated by the U.S. because of racism and
constituency-based politics. This, according to expansionists, makes the United States
look like a “very prejudiced nation” and tarnishes the image of expansionists. Most
important of all, it does not effectively save the lives of people who truly need saving.

Among expansionists there exists a general dissatisfaction with U.S. refugee
policy. While some are disturbed by recent changes in immigrant policies (e.g., firrther
restricting noncitizen rights and entitlements), the mismanagement of refugee policy is
especially troublesome. Considerations brought to bear on immigrants (e. g., family
reunification, employment opportunities, diversity, etc.) shrink in significance when

compared to the life and death realities encountered by real refugees.

Globalism: Erasing Lines
In a very general sense, globalism signifies the countless streams of information, people,
resources, and goods crossing national boundaries on a regular basis. Tough to define,

yet easy to spot, expansionists see it as an inevitable force in national and international

202

affairs. From their perspective, the activities comprising globalism are basically benign
and govemable if international agreements and immigration policies are adjusted to its
inner workings and varied impacts. To expansionists, globalism is something to
engage—as much as possible—on one’s own terms. Their views on border enforcement
and various immigration policies demonstrate a desire to manage immigration, not with

“open borders,” but with fair and flexible policies.

Engaging the Globe

On the expansionist porch, the welcome mat for globalization is king-size. According to
expansionists, the cross-border circulation of people and products should be
accommodated, not resisted. Besides, fighting the inevitable makes no sense.
Immigration is a fact of life so why not manage it with better policies and programs
instead of bemoaning the new world order? As the world’s drawstrings are pulled tighter
by international linkages, immigration becomes increasingly important to the health of
the American economy:

. . .I’m not an economist, but I’m fairly persuaded that, in the aggregate, immigration is
good for America, economically. . .When a man like George Gilder says that our
technology industry would be 40% behind where it is right now if it weren’t for foreign-
bom brain power, you know, I kind of nod and think, “That may be right”. . .I think
immigrants create opportunities for everybody. . .I’m basically a [supporter of] free trade,
tear down barriers to economic activity—both here and abroad. I want an America that can
prosper by engaging with the world economically.

The idea of “engaging” is central to the expansionist perspective on globalism. Almost
every policy decision—in some way—radiates fi'om this midpoint.

If the U.S. is to engage the world, its policy makers must recognize that severing
immigration policy from other policies is not only imprudent, but also impractical. The

historical and economic links welcoming capital also invite people (Sassen 1996). One

203

 

expansionist explains: “There’s a very, very small difference between closing the doors
on immigration and closing the doors to international trade because they both respond to
the same impulse...”

According to one lobbyist, the United States needs to align its policies with the

realities of globalization:

...the companies I deal with—a lot of them don’t even consider themselves U.S.
companies anymore. They consider themselves global companies that happen to be
located in the United States. . .so the realities of the market today are that we have to
accommodate these flows of people because if we don’t, other countries will and, frankly,
companies—especially in the services industry——can pick up and move. . .operations pretty
quickly. . . .And so that’s why I think businesses get into it. You know, I don’t know that
they’re all in favor of. . .open borders, but they know they need the people...1n my view you
can’t stop the globalization of the economy. Whether it’s good to have a McDonalds in
every country, you know, I don’t know. But the fact is that’s what’s happening.

The U.S. has to manage immigration. The Option of cutting it off doesn’t exist: “. . .I just
believe that we are moving towards a world economy where national boundaries are
gonna make less difference. . .Whether you’re pro-immigration or anti-immigration—the
immigrants are coming one way or the other.” This view is representative of most
expansionists. One way or the other, immigrants come standard with a post-industrial
economy and American foreign policy:

I continue to believe, as I always did, that the crux is the demand side. . .You want to
control immigration. . .you need to reshape the size of the low wage labor market. As long
as you have a kind of unregulated, low wage labor market, people are going to seek out and
recruit the lowest wage workers available... I think that immigration is a fact of life—a
fact of life in the United States, a fact of life globally. . .One of the things that I would do
was to try to tell the truth. . .Look, immigration is here to stay. ..it’s part of the world. We
have a large immigrant population [in California] and they’re not going home. . .It’s in our
interest to ensure the integration of immigrants—that’s what’s good for everyone in the
United States. . .Full participation is, in fact, in the interest of everyone.

...another component that motivates a lot of people in the pro-immigrant [camp]. . .is a
sense that the United States somehow has a direct responsibility for the conditions that lead
people to emigrate and come to the United States. Because of the international scope of
our economic, political, and military activities, as a nation. . .we have a responsibility. . .to
people who want to come to the United States.

204

Given these realities, some expansionists believe the United States should assist
immigrants and refugees who are, in some way, responding to contexts created—at one
time or another—by the federal government. Other expansionists recommend adapting
national immigration laws to the rudiments of international agreements and norms. The
Refugee Act of 1980, for example, was enacted to accomplish this very objective (Portes
and Rumbaut 1996). In like manner, some argue that employment-based immigration
policy requires immediate updating. If immigration law does not keep up with the ever-
evolving strategies and procedures of business, the global competitiveness of U.S.-based,

international firms will be undermined.

Realpolitik

Charles Keely recently interviewed human resource professionals from nine globally-
oriented firms (e.g., Digital Equipment, Eastman Kodak, Ford, Intel, etc.) about the hiring
and moving of international personnel. Relating their practices to immigrant and
nonimmigrant visa programs, Keely and his respondents repeatedly emphasize the
disjunction between immigration policy and post-industrial economies.l One interviewee
maintains: “If you want to have a competitive company, staying alive for the future, you
have to grow people with an international mindset, a breadth of understanding” (Keely
1998: 25). Keely, himself, concludes that the United States needs to “catch up” with
international practices and norms (1998: 11, 33):

The increased use of temporary visas for international personnel movement and the labor
force dynamics of knowledge-based economic activities reflect the realities of the
contemporary global marketplace. Changes in international personnel movement are here

 

' Keely sometimes blurs the line between personal opinion and interview paraphrase because he seemingly
agrees with many of the respondents. Funding and interview contacts were primarily supplied by the
American Council on lntemational Personnel, an expansionist organization. This does not imply a conflict
of interest, but does suggest that his views are fairly congruent with international firms engaged in
international hiring and personnel movement.

205

to stay. Immigration laws needs to emphasize the facilitation of international personnel

movement consonant with the needs of international business, as well as to protect

domestic labor markets. American labor self sufficiency is no longer descriptively

accurate (if it ever was) and, given the nature of knowledge-based industries, is a self-

defeating norm. . .The world of business has changed while immigration policy thinking is

hampered by outmoded models of economics, of business practices, and of the factors that

help and harm job grth as well as the health of firms and the U.S. economy.
This suggestion is fairly congruent with the expansionist tendency to see positive-sum
solutions to immigration problems, and the propensity to ignore restrictionist warnings of
overpopulation and environmental degradation. Keely concludes there is a degree of
friction between protecting domestic labor and facilitating the international movement of
personnel, but that “it makes little sense to contend that international personnel
movement does not contribute to the health of the U.S. economy and the national
interest” (1998: 61). Not a pure win-win situation, nor a strict zero-sum scenario, both
labor and business stand to benefit from a robust economy.

In addition to developing alternative visa strategies, some expansionists suggest

that instead of treating employment- and family-based admissions as competing goals,

why not consider them complementary:

...our political strategy all along. . .basically...has always been founded on the premise that
the support for immigration, politically, is very fiagile. And that support has stuck
together. And the reason we’ve generally prevailed, is that you have two groups that are
out there fighting for immigration: sort of the family groups and the ethnic groups that
fight for family-based immigration and then the business community which fights for the
employer-based immigration. And we’ve always felt like we don’t want to pit the two
sides against each other because divided they’ll fall. And so we’ve always said, you know,
“More of one doesn’t mean less of another.”

Other expansionists, however, recommend that certain policies and practices be amended
or discontinued. The fourth preference (category for adult siblings of citizens), “diversity

visa” lottery system (where visas are allocated to countries “adversely affected” by the

206

1965 amendments), and Lautenberg Amendment (described earlier) are regularly
criticized as impractical and/or unjustifiable.2
Generally absent among restrictionists and “lower-ranking” expansionists,
influential expansionists typically possess a “realpolitik” approach to immigration policy.
From their perspective, there is little room for nonsensical policies:
We have a diversity lottery, as a purely political anirnal—it has nothing to do with
immigration. It had to do with what we needed to do in order to get the support of certain
groups back in 1990. . .I would shed it—no compelling reason to have it. It makes
absolutely no sense. It’s unnecessary. It also gives people around the world the
impression that somehow you need people. When a country advertises a lottery system to
get visas to that country, what kind of impression do you get in Bangladesh?. ..I’m a firm
believer we did this. . .in order to, in a very indirect way, satisfy proclivities that Kennedy
and Morrison had and promises that they had made to the Irish. . .I’m offended by this very
concept of diversity. You want to bring Irish in? You have balls? Push it through. Push it
through, okay? Let’s not really screw up the entire system in order to hide all sorts of
special preferences. . .Fourth preferenCHut, done. Why? I’m not interested in how the
Asians or the Hispanics or the Greeks define family. It’s of no interest to me. I’m looking
at the practicality of the issue.

Even “high ranking” expansionists cannot agree on what to discard, keep, or revise.

However, they do agree that theoretical and ethical objectives can, at times, be traded in

for political success.

For example, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform was very
critical of the large backlog in the category for immediate relatives. Protracted waiting
periods for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens (who are legally entitled to enter
the United States) were deemed unacceptable. In their report to Congress, they

recommended that the long waiting lines be cleared—not by expanding the numbers or

relaxing regulations—but by transferring visas:

The Commission recommends allocation of 550,000 family-based admission numbers each
year until the large backlog of spouses and minor children is cleared. Numbers going to
lower priority categories (e.g., adult children, siblings, and diversity immigrants), should

 

2 See Appendix 1 in the I 994 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for a brief
description of U.S. immigration legislation.

207

be transferred to the nuclear family categories. Thereafter Congress should set sufficient
admission numbers to permit all spouses and minor children to enter expeditiously. . .In
1995, the wait between application and admission of the spouses and minor children of
LPRs [legal permanent residents] was approximately three years. It is now more than four
and one-half years and still growing (U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 1997: 19).

This suggestion reflects the kind of tradeoff prominent expansionists are willing to make,
although it doesn’t mean they would make the same recommendation. One explains:

I think there’s a tendency of the pro-immigrant sides to be dominated by ethnic politics in a
way that has been positive in a sense of our political mobilizing, but gets overdone in the
sense that—you know, policies that I can’t justify on the merits to myself, you’ll find
Hispanic groups or Asian groups defending and justifying because of ethnic politics. . .Take
fourth preference, the brothers and sisters category, I would’ve given it up a long time
ago—not the pending cases, but the pipeline cases. We got twenty years of pipeline

cases. . .And how can you defend brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens with a twenty year
backlog when spouses and minor children of legal immigrants are waiting five years or six
years—and they’re immediate relatives and you got nuclear families. . .The Jordan
Commission’s report was total bullshit in this regard because they were trading only one
side of the trade, but there’s something to their analysis that you do have immediate
relatives waiting in line—more distant relatives coming in, and that we need to do a better
job of reuniting nuclear families more quickly. Sol buy that diagnosis—I don’t buy their
solution, which is to throw all the other categories overboard in the process.

In terms of worldview, this statement is very typical of powerful expansionists. They
provide theoretical, ideological, and moral reasons for their actions, but unlike
restrictionists, find it hard to step outside of the political arena—even for a short while.

When asked to describe an “ideal” immigration policy, prominent expansionists
regard the question as irrelevant or, in some cases, take it as an opportunity to draft a
short wish list. One veteran expansionist combined both sets of remarks:

Brian: If it was up to you, and you didn’t have to worry about what’s politically
expedient...what would U.S. immigration policy look like?. ..

That’s a question I really haven’t given much thought to. . .I try to stay so focused on
what’s realistic. . .I just see this as a very dynamic and contingent process—that there’s no
right policy...And I’m not even sure if it’s worth me thinking about what would I really
want. I want the policies, given the current political context and climate, to be as favorable
and generous as possible. I do not support open borders. I don’t think those are

realistic. . .That might make my heart sing for a few minutes, but I just know it would lead
to such a backlash that probably the doors would slam shut. So, it’s hard for me to get out
of the kind of pragmatic point of view that I think from. So, you know, I think I’d like to
see legal immigration perhaps a little higher, refugees a little higher, asylum a little more
generous, like to see more investment in immigrants and the other folks that live in their

208

communities where they settle, I would like a better refugee protection regime
internationally. . .I’d love to see a new amnesty program for undocumented immigrants in
the United States. But 1 don’t mind tougher deportation and stronger border controls and
more effective enforcement as long as its intelligent and not done in such a heavy-handed
way that it intrudes on other values and rights that we hold dear. . .There’s no single truth.
The truth is whatever it is in the moment and you know, if we do our job better, we’ll have
a more generous and open policy. . .So, what’s the price of a house, what’s the right price
of a house? Well, it’s what the market determines. You know, what’s the right
immigration policy is what the political market determines, and we’re players in that
marketplace, and I think we’re doing much better than we’ve been doing in recent years
and that we’re gonna probably. . . gain ground over the next five years.

For many expansionists, the overall system is fine. They would like to see better people
“minding the store” (i.e., overseeing immigration policy) and some new programs, but
overall, if they had their way, the system would basically remain the same. American
immigration policies are “full of problems. . .but fimdarnentally. . .when you look at what
we call the fundamental architecture of the law. . .there’s nothing wrong with the system.”

Perhaps because current estimates of net illegal immigration vary between two
and three hundred thousand per year (National Research Council 1997: 50), the above
statements are viewed by some restrictionists as an endorsement of illegal immigration.
A reluctance to endorse current illegal immigration controls might be interpreted as
favoring open borders. Whatever the reasons may be, one influential expansionist
explains that this is not the case: “. . .I don’t believe in open borders. . .I believe in good
public policy. . .I believe in a very, very regulated and tightly managed border, but that
doesn’t make me a supporter of whatever we’re doing at the border...”

A prominent expansionist who regularly interacts with other influential colleagues
explains that the ones who “don’t believe in enforcement” prevent them from being
proactive in the debate:

The pro-immigrant side has gotta have a set of answers on enforcement. We don’t believe,
I don’t believe, in open borders. I’ve never believed in open borders. A hundred years
from now I might believe in open borders. Well, I don’t today...I do believe in a kind of
community of the Americas, like the European community, over a couple of generations. 1

209

think it’s gonna happen anyhow so we might as well try to shape it, but I’ve always
believed that my side of this debate had to have a serious attitude toward

enforcement. . .But the left of the pro-immigrant debate doesn’t believe in enforcement and
doesn’t believe it’s our job to tackle enforcement issues. . .Well, we had a big internal
debate in ’93-’94. A number of us developed an enforcement agenda. . . [Our organization]
was stopped from pursuing that agenda by its left-wing, who engineered a real

crisis. . .Bottom line—nobody on the pro-immigrant side had anything to say about
enforcement these last two years except, “No, we don’t like it. We don’t like this, we don’t
like that, we don’t like that, we don’t like this.” We had no affirmative agenda, so it [the
1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act] was like a default. We just
gave it away, just gave it away. . .So, it’s a big political lesson to so-called good guys that if
you don’t grapple with tough issues then somebody else will and you’ll be shut out of the
debate. ..So, that’s one of my perspectives on my side of the debate that we’ve been, with
the exception of myself and a few others, woefully irresponsible over years in not
acknowledging legitimacy of enforcement, the legitimacy in public concerns about illegal
immigration, the legitimacy of trying to make enforcement work...

Only two expansionists interviewed for this study unequivocally support open borders,
although neither comes from the “left” side of the pro-immigration debate. The above
statement, however, is difficult to substantiate. Only two interviews were conducted with
representatives from left-of-center ethnic lobbies like La Raza and MALDEF (e. g., see
Figure 3 in Chapter 4).

Without being put to the question, most expansionists regularly assert their
commitment to a regulated border. Another expansionist emphasized: “I don’t think
you’ll find barely a person who opposes some kind of orderly, systematic... limitation on
immigration. . .You may find an open border person somewhere or another, but pretty
much not in most of the groups who are working on this issue.” The idea of a more open
border, however, does appeal to some expansionists.

As intimated earlier, why should outmoded, fatiguing INS regulations slow the
flow of human capital when investment capital is allowed to cross without inspection?
Some expansionists point to mountainous backlogs in family- and skills-based
admissions as cause for less restrictions: “I think we do need to stop illegal immigration.

1 would just go about it a different way. I wouldn’t close the borders to stop it, but I

210

would actually make it easier for more people to come in and not have to wait in line so
long to do that.”

Ideas like this are regularly interwoven with a realpolitik. Reassured by a
comforting past, and confident of their assessments, expansionists work together so they
can win: “The rewarding [part of my job] is doing coalition work. . .and learning that
we’re all in this together, and together, trying to figure out how. . .to form a flank that is

unbeatable.”

Conclusion
To expansionists, immigration is more of a humanitarian and economic question than a
national one. The national interest is significant, but other aspirations also deserve
special consideration, such the rights of refugees, desires of immigrants, and needs of
business. In the expansionist vision these objectives are interconnected and
complementary. For example, the United States acquires generosity by giving it away
and American businesses profit from immigrant proficiencies just as immigrants gain
from American deficiencies. The list could go on, but the point is this—by and large,
immigration benefits the United States and the people it accommodates. The national
interest is achieved by expanding immigration, not by reducing it. The American
experiment with immigration is not an empty tradition, but part of a broad, imprecise

strategy to synchronize the extension of democracy with the unceasing march of capital.

211

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this investigation are reviewed and integrated into a more comprehensive
analysis of immigration reform. The intensity and scope of immigration politics
fluctuates with perceptions of immigrant phenomena, which in tum, are shaped by
domestic interest groups, international relations, national contexts and legal categories.
The confluence of these contingencies is briefly examined, as well as the worldviews of
activists, which are organized into a typology of expansionist and restrictionist motives.

The chapter closes with two suggestions for firture research.

Review

The process of nativism was defined in Chapter 2 as “a native defense of proprietary
claims over and against the encroachment of aliens.” This definition is composed of
shifting categories and perceptions. “Native” and “alien” are socially constructed,
relationally defined categories. Natives define themselves vis-a-vis aliens by converting
their perceptions of aliens into contrastive identities. In other words, natives know who
they are by knowing who they are not (e.g., see Blumer 1958; Sartre 1946). “Proprietary
claim” and “encroachment” are perceptions of entitlement and infringement. The
assertion that immigrants are taking American jobs, for example, assumes that certain
jobs are the property of Americans.

Restrictionists and expansionists regularly demonstrate the congruence between
their interests and the national interest by promoting their perceptions of immigration.

They manage the impression that they are “living up to the many standards by which they

212

and their products are judged” so they will appear credible and legitimate (Goffrnan
1959: 251). This observation, along with the categories and perceptions noted above, are
integrated below. By way of review, these categories and perceptions are broken down
into three sections: (1) perceptions and context, (2) categories and context, and (3)
legitimacy and context. All three “components” owe their significance, in large measure,

to the social and legal contexts from which they originate.

Perceptions and Context

The immigration debate is overflowing with empirical and moral arguments shipped from
different warehouses of values and interpretations. The worldviews of expansionists and
restrictionists frame immigration in contrastive ways and assign different meanings to
immigrants and the changes they generate. These meanings are constructed and handled
within a range of contexts variously connected to immigration reform.

For example, the most egregious examples of American nativism have historically
transpired during wartime (see Table 1 in Chapter 3). During these eras, the social
meanings assigned to immigrant populations primarily converge on matters of national
security.1 In the early stages of World War I, the German-American Alliance and
German-American press supported Germany. These actions were considered a threat to
national security because the United States was at war with Germany. Had they
supported their homeland in a different setting (e.g., during peacetime or in a war of little
consequence to the U.S.), the ensuing arrests and internments would most likely have
never occurred. Their actions would have been interpreted as an exercise in free speech,

ethnic pride, or an unwillingness to assimilate, but not as a threat to national security.

213

War is an intense political act for any state (Panayi 1990), and its emergence can
transform “normal” immigrant behaviors into national security issues. Immigrant actions
are not intrinsically anything—their meanings arise within the context of social
interaction. Interpretation is not an “automatic application of established meanings,” but
“a formative process in which meanings are used and revised for the guidance and
formation of action” (Blumer 1986: 5).

This process is also observable in the interview data. The restrictionist agenda is
principally advanced by environmentalists (see Chapters 4 and 5), but researchers usually
associate restrictionist motives with economic conditions, demographic considerations,
and racial proclivities (e.g., see Calavita 1996; Feagin 1997; Muller 1997). Assumptions
like these are often accurate (e.g., see Chapters 5 and 7; Abernethy 1993; Brimelow
1996), but inferring motives fiom these contexts reduces the restrictionist agenda to a
potpourri of Pavlovian responses.2

For example, restrictionists can be indifferent to a given set of circumstances, yet
still manipulate them for political ends. Prominent expansionists acknowledge the
importance of population stabilization to their restrictionist counterparts, but distinguish
between their personal motivations and political opportunities:

...I think if you trace the last 5 years. . .you can give credit to the anti-immigration groups
for effectively getting their arguments out and creating the climate that they did. There
was a context called “recession,” “disaffection with the Federal Government,” some
notorious incidents, and they rode the wave beautifully.

Population restrictionists were able to ride the wave of public opinion even though their

objectives, and the contexts they were operating in, were not a perfect match. The public

 

’ This observation extends Finnemore’s (1996) analysis of state interests and state behavior to the
exigencies of immigration reform (see section three in this chapter).

214

may not have associated their problems with immigration (or population growth), but
restrictionists “made” the connection for them. In return, expansionists tried to “blunt
their momentum” by associating immigration with history and the “American dream.”
The above expansionist continues:

Meanwhile, we didn’t respond effectively. We were on the sidelines, “Oh, it’s
scapegoating, oh it’s racism,” and we never figured out how to engage the debate until,
really I think, the last two years. In the last two years, we’ve figured out how to blunt their
momentum: “There’s a difference between legal and illegal immigration;” “We’re a nation
of immigrants—don’t throw the tradition out the window;” “Immigrants work hard,
revitalize the American dream.” Some of those arguments started to catch.

As emphasized above, meanings arise within the context of social interaction. While
some settings seemingly have a profound impact on human interpretation (e. g., war),
some contexts are only incidental in their influence. That is, their occurrence has little
impact on the way pe0ple see, or think about, immigrants. For example, nativist
initiatives regularly occur during boom and bust cycles because it is the interpretation of
an event—not the event itself—that ultimately influences mass behavior (see Table 1 in
Chapter 3). Public opinions are, of course, also influenced by the presentation of, and
interactions between, interest groups (Blumer 1966; 1986: 198).

These interactions (between interest groups) are primarily guided—not by knee-
jerk reactionaries—but by principle-driven, true believers. Expansionists and
restrictionists already know what they believe. In most cases, “new findings” will not
change their minds because their beliefs and values principally rest on metaphysical, not
empirical, assumptions. For example, expansionists generally believe the economy is

comprised of positive-sum possibilities and restrictionists generally think it is composed

 

2 The same, of course, could also be said about the expansionist agenda. It is advanced during “good” and
“bad” times, although its political objectives are (like the restrictionist agenda) tempered by contextual
considerations.

215

of zero-sum limits. Or, here’s another example: many restrictionists think natural
resources are finite, but some expansionists believe they are infinite.

Scientists cannot conclusively “prove” or “disprove” these assumptions because
they are metaphysical claims. Garrett Hardin (1995) and Julian Simon (1996) both
concede that their arguments are built, respectively, on assumptions of finiteness and
infuriteness. Scientists simply cannot measure all of the world’s natural resources. Nor
can they “test” the metaphors of positive and zero-sum economies. They can amass piles
of studies to demonstrate the plausibility of each perspective, but they cannot “prove” the
existence of either. A seemingly zero-sum situation (immigrants displacing native-born
workers) might have positive-sum results (additional jobs are created, therefore
expanding opportunities for native-born workers). Or, a positive-sum event (immigrant
entrepreneurs creating additional jobs) might only be a passing development in an
otherwise zero-sum scenario (the creation of additional jobs is achieved at the expense of
competitors who must then downsize their workforces in order to stay in business).

The point is this—activists amend their arguments and goals in light of various
conditions (economic downturns, etc.), but their beliefs remain basically unchanged. I
asked a libertarian expansionist if he would change his mind about immigration if the
economic contributions of immigrants were “in the red.” His answer indicates that his
position, while not waterproof, is certainly water resistant: “It would lessen my
enthusiasm, but I don’t think I’d therefore say, ‘Well, we should close the borders.’”
This comment, I argue, is typical of expansionists and restrictionists (see population and
environment section in Chapter 5 and refugee section in Chapter 6). Their beliefs are not

impervious to new conditions and facts, but are largely unaffected by them.

216

A typology of their motivations can be advanced from this investigation. The
primary perceptions of expansionists and restrictionists are listed alphabetically in Table
2. Compiled from interview data and published documents, their perspectives are also
described as “motives” because their interpretations rationalize their worldviews and
ensuing behaviors (see Chapter 4). “As a word, a motive tends to be one which to the
actor and the other members of a situation an unquestioned answer to questions
concerning social and lingual conduct” (Mills 1940: 907, italics in original). In one
sense, the motives are “types” of expansionists and restrictionists, although many

activists enter the debate through multiple “entry points” (see Chapters 4-6).

Table 3 Expansionist and Restrictionist Motives

 

Expansionists Restrictionists
Business Assimilation (perceived lack thereof)
Cultural (assimilation or multiculturalism) Cultural
Family Reunification Demographic (ethnic politics, fertility)
Humanitarian (asylees and refugees) Environmental
Libertarian Labor
Religious Population
Traditional (immigration history) Racial

 

It must be emphasized (again) that these motives, or worldviews, are primarily derived
from interviews with immigration activists operating at the national level. As one
restrictionist put it, “. . .the driver for [restrictionists]—there are two: one is population,
the other is culture. . .Culture is much more important when you get out of Washington.” I
suspect this is accurate, but their perceptions, whether they are formulated in the nation’s
capitol or in Miami, are also influenced (to varying degrees) by the legal and social

categories “used” in the immigration debate.

217

Categories and Context

Membership in a polity is predicated on social and legal distinctions. The word “alien”
is, in fact, used by the INS to refer to any person who is “not a citizen or national of the
United States” (INS 1994). The separation between citizens and noncitizens is
recognized by national and international laws, although human rights law limits the scope
and significance of these distinctions. For example, the regulation of immigration is a
national right, but this right is largely dependent on the incorporation of customary laws
into national laws by U.S. courts (Malone 1995: 43, 56, 118-128).

Socially defined categories like citizen/noncitizen and native/alien are used by
public officials, government agencies, immigration activists, and everyday citizens to
“solve pressing organizational problems by means of categorical distinction” (Tilly 1998:
8). That is, people who have the right to distribute or protect collective resources (e. g.,
American citizens, “natives,” Representative Lamar Smith, FAIR, etc.) manage these
boundaries in order to resolve “pressing” national problems. For example, Senator
Abraham (R-Mich.) is attempting to bridge the gap between the needs of global, U.S.-
based firms and the presumed shortage of highly-skilled Americans by proposing an
increase in the number of Hl-B visas (nonimmigrant visas for specialty occupations).
His proposal would monitor the movement of immigrants across certain boundaries (e.g.,
the border and INS categories) without changing the basic distinction between citizens
and noncitizens. However, the Wall Street Journal ’s editorial position (which advocates
a constitutional amendment to establish open borders) would blur the line between
natives and aliens (at least on one front) if it were implemented. The distinction between

citizens and noncitizens might stay intact, but removing national borders (if only for

218

immigration purposes) would redefine the meaning of national sovereignty because the
very idea of sovereignty assumes the existence of a national territory (Malone 1995).
For restrictionists, boundaries between natives and aliens are unavoidable:
“. . .life is a series of drawing lines and you have to draw lines with respect to whom you
want to be kind.” The paired categories of citizen/noncitizen and national/international
are fimdarnental to their mindset. This is especially true of environmental and population
restrictionists. Their “solutions” for minimizing population growth and environmental
degradation rely heavily on such distinctions. As one restrictionist put it: “. . . population
policies are the sort of very sensitive policies that can only be established nation by
nation.” In a stratified and “overpopulated” world, sovereignty is—in their minds—a
precondition for drafting efficacious policies. As Tilly explains: “People who create or
sustain categorical inequality. . .rarely set out to manufacture inequality. . .Instead they
solve other organizational problems by establishing categorically unequal access to
valued outcomes” (1998: 11). The nation-state is used by restrictionists to mitigate the
presumed problems of overpopulation and environmental decline. In their minds, the
U.S. can only stabilize its population by maintaining replacement-level fertility (births =
deaths) and migration (immigration = emigration) ratios. These goals are national-level
goals, and their success hinges in large measure on the reformulation of national

immigration laws.

Legitimacy and Context
Of course, immigration polices are not only shaped by domestic politics, but also by
international relations (Finnemore 1996; Mitchell 1992; Sassen 1996). State interests and

behaviors are modified by international organizations, relations, and norms. The

219

 

objectives, values, and perceptions of nation-states are affected by the demands of
domestic interest groups and an ever-changing context of international norms and values:

We cannot understand what states want without understanding the international social
structure of which they are a part. States are embedded in dense networks of transnational
and international social relations that shape their perceptions of the world and their role in
that world. States are socialized to want certain things by the international society in
which they and the people in them live. . .Interests are not just “out there” waiting to be
discovered; they are constructed through social interaction. . .State interests are defined in
the context of internationally held norms and understandings about what is good and
appropriate. That normative context influences the behavior of decisionmakers and of
mass publics who may choose and constrain those decisionmakers. The normative context
also changes over time, and as internationally held norms and values change, they create
coordinated shifts in state interests and behavior across the system (Finnemore 1996: 2,
italics in original).

At first sight, this observation—that states are socialized by the international
community—seems trite. But it is not. Scholars typically use a language of constraint to
explain interactions between states and international organizations, but Finnemore argues
that international organizations actually change state interests. The international system
influences state action, “not by constraining states with a given set of preferences from
acting, but by changing their preferences” (1996: 6).

F innemore does not examine immigration policy structures, but her analysis does
shed light on the politics of immigration reform. The preferences of immigration
activists are, to varying degrees, influenced by international norms and organizations.
Provisional support is found in cross-national comparisons of immigration policies (e. g.,
see Papademetriou and Hamilton 1996; Teitelbaum and Winter 1998), and the responses
of restrictionists and expansionists to international phenomena. Restrictionists and
expansionists are generally familiar with, or at least sense, the impact of international
conceptions and practices (see nationalism section in Chapter 5 and globalism section in
Chapter 6). In terms of international organization, their perceptions are most likely

influenced by human rights law (e.g., see Malone 1995; Sassen 1996), world population

220

conferences (e.g., see Hays 1989), global economic and environmental summits (e.g., see
Rothman 1998; Simon 1996), and attempts by the European Union to develop continent-
wide policy fiarneworks (Papademetriou and Hamilton 1996; Papademetriou 1996).

Of course, there are other influential discourses—grounded in various institutions
and embodied in different institutional practices—that can be explored as sites of
meaning (e.g., see McCall and Becker 1990: 13; McCall and Wittner 1990: 56-59). The
typology of motives arranged in Table 3, for instance, resembles the range of “racial
projects” envisioned by Omi and Winant (1994) and Winant (1994; 1997). Racial
projects try to explain racial dynamics and organize outcomes and opportunities along
racial lines (e.g., the distribution of resources). Each project represents “race” in a unique
way, but at the center of each articulation lies a political agenda (Winant 1994: 30, 139).
For example, the “neoconservative” racial project tries to preserve white advantages by
denying racial differences, while the “neoliberal” racial project tries to limit white
advantages by denying racial differences (Winant 1997; Winant 1994: 31). The overlap
of racial and native discourses in some of the immigration reform discourses may explain
why the debate is often rife with identity politics, moral divisiveness, and motive
imputation. Promoters of these projects seek different arrangements, yet embrace some
of the very same “rationalizing formulas” (W inant 1997).

Similarly, expansionists and restrictionists contend for public approval and
governmental policies congruent with their perspectives, yet both are nationalistic in that
the national interest is ostensibly at the center of their reforms. That is, the discourse of
nationalism is used to represent the national interest and legitimize their claims (Light

1996). There is a significant difference, however, between racial projects and “native

221

projects.” In both endeavors, the racialization of “others” and their ensuing subordination
has played, and continues to play, a significant role in determining questions of
membership (see Chapter 3 for examples). Native systems of exclusion and privilege
intersect with other hierarchies to protect native advantages, but unlike racial projects,
often enjoy a modicum of legitimacy and legality. In the United States, gradations of
membership are largely acceptable if they are based on the status of citizenship, as
opposed to, say, race or gender (e.g., see Brubaker 1989).

Much has already been said about legitimacy (see Chapters 2 and 4), but its
historical variability and political importance are worth reiterating. Restrictionists and
expansionists devote considerable time and energy to developing arguments that appeal
to the public’s opinions of what is right and wrong. The normative context surrounding
immigration reform has changed, and will continue to change. The international context

is only one influence among many, but I suspect its influence will only grow with time.

Suggestions for Future Research
This investigation examines the historical roots (Chapter 3) and contemporary branches
(Chapters 4-6) of American immigration reform. Nativism scholars generally use
history, contemporary conditions, and popular restrictionist writings to define nativism
and explain its occurrence (see Chapters 1-2). This study travels each of these paths—
then clears a new one. Examining the historical contexts associated with nativist
outbreaks and the worldviews of restrictionists and expansionists exhibits some of the
material conditions, ideas, and norms influencing the interpretation of immigrant-related

phenomena. The meanings of these experiences develop within various contexts

222

(normative, material, etc.) and are used by interest groups to influence public opinion and
mass behavior (Blumer 1958; 1966; 1986).

Unlike most studies of American immigration reform, this one investigates the
beliefs systems of immigration activists. Their worldviews are not only formed by the
winds of economic change, but are hammered in the fires of belief systems and diverse
contexts (of which the national economy is only one). While some social scientists are
guilty of reducing immigration beliefs to economic, demographic, and social contexts,
others rely on identity politics to do their thinking for them. The assumption that
restrictionists are patently racist or that expansionists are only concerned about cheap
labor is regularly aired, but how many of them have bothered to ask restrictionists and
expansionists about their worldviews and involvement? Very few. Clearly, there are
some racist restrictionists and some greedy expansionists, but I strongly suspect that they
are in the minority. Most expansionists and restrictionists are principled people pursuing
an immigration reality that they see as reasonable and just.

This research does not replace existing analyses, but complements their forms of
inquiry. It scrutinizes untested assumptions about motives and context and lays the
groundwork for future investigations, and like its predecessors, also stands to benefit
from supplementary studies. Specifically, better public opinion polls and in-depth
interviews with local (as opposed to national) activists would be especially valuable.

Do Americans think the U.S. allows too many, too few, or just the right amount of
immigrants into the country each year? Variations of this “Goldilocks and the Three
Bears” question have been regularly asked since 1946 and most Americans, unlike

Goldilocks, rarely conclude that current levels are “just right” (e.g., see Espenshade and

223

Hempstead 1996; Simon 1993). Instead, the majority of Americans say they would like a
decrease in immigration. But as Teitelbaum and Winter point out, “American views on
immigration are not so uniformly negative as such data suggest” (1998: 145). Public
opinion questions on whether specific categories of immigrants should be let in (like
family members and refugees) “elicit more favorable responses than do questions on
aggregate numbers” (1998: 145).

The only reliable and valid way to gauge American (or resident) attitudes toward
U.S. immigration is to collect and analyze national survey data. This study unfolds the
worldviews of immigration activists, but does not represent the typical American or U.S.
resident (although their opinions are probably shaped by the efforts of expansionists and
restrictionists). Constructing an “immigration receptivity” scale might resolve the
problem of wording effects, but such an instrument would probably require a number of
open-ended questions to identify (and understand) American attitudes toward immigrants.
For instance, when Americans say they want to increase, decrease, or maintain current
immigration levels, what are they assuming about present levels? When they talk about
immigrants, what types of immigrants do they have in mind (e.g., labor migrants,
professional immigrants, etc.)? Questions like these would complicate coding and
statistical procedures (e.g., by comparing similar responses instead of identical answers),
and necessitate in-depth interviews, but they would permit unanticipated responses and
reveal the respondents’ frames of reference (N euman 1994: 232-34).

The second and related suggestion addresses the purposive sample used for this
research study. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the exploratory nature of this research

project, absence of a precise sampling frame, and focus on national activists, makes it

224

difficult to answer questions of representation. While representativeness was not the
objective per se, the sample seems fairly representative of national activists, given the
extensive overlap in themes and interview referrals (see Chapter 4 for details). However,
studying regional and local immigration reform initiatives would probably refine some of
the pictures developed in Chapters 4-6.

Conducting interviews with local activists would not only diversify the responses,
but the respondent pool as well. Hellwig (1982) examines historical patterns of “black
nativism, and Walby (1996) suggests that the political activities of women are generally
“less nationalist” and more local than those of men, but no researcher, to my knowledge,
has examined the specific involvement of women and African Americans in
contemporary efforts to reform immigration. There are gendered and racialized places
for women and men in national initiatives (Dill, Zinn and Patton 1998; Nagel 1998;
Winant 1994), and studying the participation of women and nonwhites in immigration
politics may reveal different interests and perceptions (e.g., see Fitzpatrick 1997;
Hondagneu-Sotelo 1995; Roberts 1997; Zavella 1997).

There are, of course more than two ways to build upon and improve this study.
The preceding analysis demonstrates that the politics of immigration reform are not
reducible to simple contexts and perceptions, but are also moved by domestic power
struggles and newly emerging values and norms. As in previous eras, its appearance on
the national agenda emanates from a presumption that the national interest somehow
conflicts with the dynamics of immigration. The accuracy of this assumption will, if

history is any indication, only become clear when the shortcomings of today’s policies

225

are faced by tomorrow’s policymakers who, during their eras of service, see firsthand the

imprudence of their predecessors.

226

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Consent Form

Dear

I am currently working on my dissertation as a doctoral student in the Department of
Sociology at Michigan State University. My research examines, in part, the controversy
over current immigration and immigrant policies. I am curious why people become
involved in efforts to maintain or change current immigration/immigrant policies, and
I’m also interested in the ideas and opinions of people who work in organizations
associated with immigrants. The goal of my research is to better understand why people
become involved in work dealing with immigration and immigrants, and to learn what
they think about their jobs and the current controversy over immigration.

As someone who has knowledge of these issues, I hope that you will share your views on
these matters. Understanding your perspective, and the viewpoints of other individuals
who are interested in immigration, will help me to understand why some people become
involved in organizations that influence, directly or indirectly, public policy and opinion
with respect to immigrants. The interview questions should take about 45 to 60 minutes
and will be recorded onto an audio cassette. Your participation is completely voluntary.
Please ask me about any question that is not clear, and if we should come to a question
that you do not wish to answer, just let me know and I’ll go on to the next one. Also, you
are free to withdraw from the interview at any time.

Anything you say in the interview will be kept strictly confidential, that is, your
responses will not be associated with you in any way. I will do everything in my power
to ensure confidentiality. There may be some cases where persons may be identifiable
because they hold a prominent or public position. Even in these cases, I will be careful
not to mention anything that would reveal your identity.

Your help and cooperation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
before or after the interview, please feel free to call me at (517) 394-1171 or send me an
e-mail (fiybrian@pilot.msu.edu). My mailing address is: 316 Berkey Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1111.

228

I would be grateful if you would check the box below and sign this form to show that you
have read its contents:

I agree to be interviewed as described above.

(signed)

 

(printed)

 

(dated)

 

Please send me a report on the results of this research project (check one):
Yes No

If “yes,” please send to:

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: keep signed copy; leave unsigned copy with respondent

229

APPENDIX 2

Interview Schedule

Respondent’s name:
Date:

Time:

Place:

DOB:

POB:

Education:

Political Persuasion:

1. Primary duties/responsibilities

1. How long have you been with [name of organization/office/department]?
2. What are your primary responsibilities, or duties, at [name of
organization/office/department]?

3. How did you become involved in this line of work?

4. What are some of the most rewarding aspects of your work?

5. What are some of the most fi'ustrating aspects of your work?

11. Immigration and Immigrants

[Note: If necessary, begin by discussing the difference between immigration and
immigrant policy]

1. Do you remember the first time you thought about immigration? When? Why?

2. Would you like to see the current level of immigration changed? Why? In what ways?
3. How do you feel immigrants are received by the public? Why? In what ways?

4. Is there anything that would make you change your mind about immigration?

5. Are your opinions tied to religious beliefs or a set of values that you hold?

6. Some people might say that you have other “motives” for wanting to [mention some of
the opinions they offered in response to questions 2 and 3]. What do you think some of
those motives might be? How would you respond to these kind of accusations?

7. Do you have a personal interest in seeing the current situation
[immigration/immigrants] changing? Staying the same?

8. Why is immigration important to you?

9. What do you think of Proposition 187? Of the new welfare legislation in regard to
legal immigrants?

10. Why do you think immigrants come to the United States?

230

111. Personal History

1. Who in your family were the original immigrants? When did they come here? Why
did they come to the United States?

2. If native-born: Do you remember you first encounter with immigrants or your first
relationship with someone who was foreign-born? When? What kind of
relationship/encounter was it?

2a. Were there immigrants in your neighborhood where you grew up?

2b. In the schools you attended?

2c. Where you’ve worked?

2d. At the present time, are any of your “good” fiiends foreign-born?

3. If foreign-born: Do you remember your first encounter with Americans? When? What
kind of encounter/relationship was it?

3a. Were there native-born Americans in your neighborhood where you grew up?

3b. In the schools you attended?

3c. Where you’ve worked?

3d. At the present time, are any of your “good” fiiends native-born?

231

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Abernethy, Virginia D. 1993. Population Politics: The Choices that Shape Our Future.
New York: Plenum Press.

Adorno, T.W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Stanford. 1950. The
Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Aguirre Jr., Adalberto. 1997. “Nativism, Mexican Immigrant Workers, and Proposition
187 in California.” Pp. 142-153 in California’s Social Problems, edited by Charles F.
Hohm. New York: Longman.

Aguirre Jr., Adalberto, and Johnathan H. Turner. 1995. American Ethnicity: The
Dynamics and Consequences of Discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Alba, Richard. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Alba, Richard. 1996. “Italian Americans: A Century of Ethnic Change.” Pp. 172-181 in
Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by Silvia
Pedraza and Ruben G. Rumbaut. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Albrow, Martin. 1990. Max Weber's Construction of Social Theory. New York: St.
Martin's Press.

Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. 1997. “The Tightening Circle of Membership.” Pp. 324-332 in

Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy
in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Anbinder, Tyler. 1992. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the
Politics of the 1850s. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Auster, Lawrence. 1997. Huddled Clichés: Exposing the Fraudulent Arguments That

Have Opened America's Borders to the World. Monterey, VA: American Immigration
Control Foundation.

233

Banton, Michael. 1995. “Rational Choice Theories.” American Behavioral Scientist 38:
478-497.

Barber, Benjamin R. 1996. Jihad vs. Mc World: How Globalism and Tribalism are
Reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books.

Barkan, Elliot Robert. 1996. And Still They Come: Immigrants and American Society:
1920 to the 19903. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson.

Barkan, Elliott R. 1995. “Race, Religion, and Nationality in American Society: A Model
of Ethnicity—From Contact to Assimilation.” Journal of American Ethnic History
19: 1995.

Barry, Colman J. 1958. “Some Roots of American Nativism.” The Catholic Historical
Review 44: 137-146.

Barth, Fredrick. 1969. “Introduction.” Pp. 9-38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization of Culture Dijference, edited by Fredrick Barth. London: Allen &
Unwin.

Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1995. Nations Unbound:
Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-

States. Switzerland: Gordon & Breach Science Publications.

Bayor, Ronald. 1986. “Klaus, Coughlinites and Aryan Nations: Patterns of American
Anti-Semitism in the Twentieth Century.” American Jewish History 76: 1 81-196.

Beck, Roy. 1992. “'Xenophobia': Scrabble Winner, Debate Stopper.” The Social Contract
2: 144-149.

Beck, Roy. 1994. Re-Charting America’s Future. Petoskey, MI: The Social Contract
Press.

Beck, Roy. 1996. The Case Against Immigration: The moral, economic, social, and
environmental reasons for reducing U.S. immigration back to traditional levels. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Bendix, Reinhard. 1960. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

Bennett, David H. 1995. The Party of F ear: From Nativist Movements to the Far Right in
American History. New York: Vintage Books.

Berger, Peter. 1997. “Four Faces of Global Culture.” The National Interest 49:23-29.

Bergquist, James M. 1986. “The Concept of Nativism in Historical Study Since Strangers
in the Land.” American Jewish History 76:125-141.

234

Billington, Ray Allen. 1963. The Protestant Crusade 1800-1860: A Study of the Origins
of American Nativism. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.

Blau, Peter M. 1963. “Critical Remarks on Weber's Theory of Authority.” American
Political Science Review 57:305-316.

Blauner, Robert. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” Pacific
Sociological Review 1:3-7.

Blumer, Herbert. 1966. “The Mass, the Public, and Public Opinion.” in Reader in Public
Opinion and Communication, edited by Bernard Berelson and Morris Janowitz. New
York: The Free Press.

Blumer, Herbert. 1971. “Social Problems as Collective Behavior.” Social Problems
1 8 :298-306.

Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Bobo, Lawrence, and Vincent L. Hutchings. 1996. “Perceptions of Racial Group
Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social
Context.” American Sociological Review 61 :951-972.

Bobo, Lawrence, and Camille L. Zubrinksky. 1996. “Attitudes toward Residential
Integration: Perceived Status Differences, Mere In-Group Preference, or Racial
Prejudice?” Social Forces 74:883-909.

Bonacich, Edna. 1980. “Class Approaches to Ethnicity and Race.” The Insurgent
Sociologist 10:9-23.

Booth, William. 1996. “In a Rush, New Citizens Register Their Political Interest As
More Immigrants Become Naturalized, First Tendency is Toward Democratic Party.”
in The Washington Post.

Borjas, George J. 1994. “The New Economics of Immigration: Affluent Americans gain;
poor Americans lose.” Pp. 1-6 in The Atlantic Monthly.

Bosniak, Linda S. 1997. “"Nativism" the Concept: Some Reflections.” Pp. 279-299 in
Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Bouvier, Leon F., and Lindsey Grant. 1994. How Many Americans? Population,
Immigration and the Environment. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

235

Brigham, CC. 1923. A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Brimelow, Peter. 1996. Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration
Disaster. New York: Random House.

Brimelow, Peter. 1997. “Un-American Activities.” Pp. 44-45 in National Review.
Brown, Rupert. 1995. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Brownstone, David M. 1994. T imelines of War. Boston: Little, Brown.

Brubaker, Rogers. 1989. “Citizenship and Naturalization: Policies and Politics.” Pp. 99-
127 in Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America,
edited by William Rogers Brubaker. Lanham, MD: University Press of North
America.

Brubaker, Rogers. 1989. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-27 in Immigration and the Politics of
Citizenship in Europe and North America, edited by William Rogers Brubaker.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Refiamed: Nationhood and the national question in
the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burawoy, Michael, Alice Burton, Ann Amett Ferguson, Kathryn J. Fox, Joshua Gamson,
Nadine Gartrell, Leslie Hurst, Charles Kurzrnan, Leslie Salzinger, Josepha Schiffrnan,
and Shiori Ui. 1991. Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern
Metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cahill, Gilbert A. 1958. “Comments.” The Catholic Historical Review 44:159-164.

Calavita, Kitty. 1996. “The New Politics of Immigration: "Balanced-Budget
Conservatism" and the Symbolism of Proposition 187.” Social Problems 43:284-305.

Calhoun, Craig. 1993. “Nationalism and Ethnicity.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:11-
39.

Calhoun, Craig. 1994. “Nationalism and Civil Society: Democracy, Diversity, and Self-
Determination.” Pp. 304-335 in Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, edited by
Craig Calhoun. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Campbell, Colin. 1996. “On the Concept of Motive in Sociology.” Sociology 30:101-114.

236

Carens, Joseph H. 1996. “Realistic and Idealistic Approaches to the Ethics of Migration.”
International Migration Review 30:156-170.

Carrasco, Gilbert Paul. 1996. “Latinos in the United States: Invitation and Exile.” in
Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. 1993. The Age of Migration: International
Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: The Guilford Press.

Cato Institute. 1997. Cato Handbook for Congress: 105‘h Congress. Washington, DC:
Cato Institute.

Chang, Robert S. 1997. “A Meditation on Borders.” in Immigrants Out! The New
Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F.
Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Chavez, Leo R. 1997. “Immigration Reform and Nativism: The Nationalist Response to
the Transnationalist Challenge.” in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-
Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New
York University Press.

Child, Clifton. 1939. The German-Americans in Politics 1914-191 7. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.

Conner, Walker. 1986. “The Impact of Homelands Upon Diasporas.” Pp. 16-46 in
Modern Diasporas in International Politics, edited by Gabriel Sheffer. New York: St.
Martin's Press.

Cornell, Stephen. 1996. “The variable ties that bind: content and circumstance in ethnic
processes.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 19:265-289.

Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press.

Crawford, James. 1992. Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English
Only". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Daniels, Roger. 1986. “Changes in Immigration Law since 1924.” American Jewish
History 76:159-180.

Daniels, Roger. 1988. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States Since
1 85 0. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Daniels, Roger. 1990. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in
American Life. New York: Harper Perennial.

237

Daniels, Roger. 1993. Prisoners Without Trial: Japanese Americans in World War II.
New York: Hill and Wang.

Delgado, Richard. 1997. “Citizenship.” Pp. 318-323 in Immigrants Out! The New
Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F.
Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Dill, Bonnie Thornton, Maxine Baca Zinn, and Sandra Patton. 1998. “Valuing Families
Differently: Race, Poverty and Welfare Reform.” Sage Race Relations Abstracts 23:4-
31.

9

Dinnerstein, Leonard, and David Reimers. 1986. “Strangers in the Land: Then and Now.’
American Jewish History 76:107-1 16.

Durham, David F. 1997. “Fatal Challenges: Prospects for Real Solutions.” Focus 7:10-
13.

Edmonds, Patricia. 1991. “FBI is accused of 'hunting' Arab Americans.” Pp. 8A in
Detroit Free Press.

Edmonds, Patricia. 1991. “Hate crimes grow: Arab Americans say the rate has jumped
since war began.” Pp. 3A in Detroit Free Press.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1990. Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New
York: Harper Perennial.

Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1990. The Population Explosion. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Ellis, Mark, and Panikos Panayi. 1994. “German Minorities in World War I : a
comparative study of Britain and the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 17:23 8-259.

Espenshade, Thomas J ., and Katherine Hempstead. 1996. “Contemporary American
Attitudes Toward U.S. Immigration.” International Migration Review 30:535-570.

Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and
Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

F eagin, Joe R. 1997. “Old Poison in New Bottles: The Deep Roots of Modern Nativism.”
in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Federation for American Immigration Reform. 1993. “Tenth Anniversary Oral History

Project of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.” Washington, DC:
Federation for American Immigration Reform.

238

F innemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell.

Fitzpatrick, Joan. 1997. “The Gender Dimension of U.S. Immigration Policy.” Yale
Journal of Law and Feminism 9:23-49.

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. 1994. Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the
Record Straight. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Fox, Stephen. 1988. “General John DeWitt and the Proposed Intemment of German and
Italian Aliens during World War II.” Pacific Historical Review 57:407-43 8.

Fox, Stephen. 1990. The Unknown Internment: An Oral History of the Relocation of
Italian Americans during World War 11. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

F rankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of
Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fredrickson, George M., and Dale T. Knobel. 1981. “Prejudice and Discrimination of.”
Pp. 829-847 in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan
Thernstrom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Frey, William H. 1995. “Immigration and Internal Migration 'Flight' from US
Metropolitan Areas: Toward a New Demographic Balkanisation.” Urban Studies
32:733-757.

Frey, William H. 1996. “Immigration, Domestic Migration, and Demographic
Balkanization in America: New Evidence for the 19903.” Population and
Development Review 22:741-763.

Frey, William H., and Jonathan Tilove. 1995. “Immigrants In, Native Whites Out.” Pp.
44-45 in New York Times Magazine.

Friedman, Kathi V. 1981. Legitimation of Social Rights and the Western Welfare State.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Friedman, Norman L. 1967. “Nativism.” Phylon 28:408-415.

Fuchs, Lawrence. 1990. The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity, and the Civic
Culture. Hanover, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Gans, Herbert J. 1979. “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in
America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 2: 1-20.

239

Gans, Herbert J. 1992. “Second generation decline: scenarios for the economic and ethnic
futures of the post-1965 American immigrants.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:173-
192.

Garling, Scipio. 1997. How to Win the Immigration Debate. Washington, DC: Federation
for American Immigration Reform.

Gibney, Mark. 1996. “A Response to Carens and Weiner.” International Migration
Review 30:198-202.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1986. Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese
American Women in Domestic Service. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, and Rhacel Salazar Parreflas. 1996. “The Other Issei: Japanese
Immigrant Women in the Pre-World War H Period.” Pp. 125-140 in Origins and
Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by Silvia Pedraza and
Rubén G. Rumbaut. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gofiinan, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor
Books.

Gold, Steven J. 1992. Refitgee Communities: A Comparative Field Study. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Gold, Steven J. 1997. “Religious Agencies, Immigrant Settlement, and Social Justice.”
Research in Social Policy 5:47065.

Gold, Steven J. 1997. “Transnationalism and Vocabularies of Motive in International
Migration: The Case of Israelis in the United States.” Sociological Perspectives
40:409-427.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Grant, Lindsey. 1996. Juggernaut: Growth on a Finite Planet. Santa Anna, CA: Seven
Locks Press.

Grodzins, Morton. 1949. Americans Betrayed: Politics and the Japanese Evacuation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Habermas, Jiirgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hailbronner, Kay. 1989. “Citizenship and Nationhood in Germany.” Pp. 67-79 in
Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, edited by
William Rogers Brubaker. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

240

Hall, Stuart. 1991. “Ethnicity: Identity and Difference.” Radical America 23:9-20.
Hardin, Garrett. 1959. Nature and Man's Fate. New York: Rinehart & Company.

Hardin, Garrett. 1974. Mandatory Motherhood: The True Meaning of "Right to Life ".
Boston: Beacon Press.

Hardin, Garrett. 1993. Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population
T aboos. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hardin, Garrett. 1995. The Immigration Dilemma: Avoiding the Tragedy of the
Commons. Washington, DC: Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Hardin, Garrett, and John Baden. 1977. “Managing the Commons.” . San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman and Company.

Harrington, Mona. 1981. “Loyalties: Dual and Divided.” Pp. 676-686 in Harvard
Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Hays, Samuel P. 1989. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the
United States, I955-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heilemann, John. 1996 (August). “Do You Know the Way to Ban Jose?” Pp. 45-48, 176-
181 in Wired.

Hellwig, David J. 1982. “Strangers in Their Own Land: Patterns of Black Nativism,
1830-1930.” American Studies 23 :85-98.

Hernandez-Truyol, Berta Esperanza. 1997. “Reconciling Rights in Collision: An
lntemational Human Rights Strategy.” in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the
Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New
York University Press.

Higham, John. 195 8. “Another Look at Nativism.” Catholic Historical Review 46: 147-
158.

Higham, John. 1984. Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Higham, John. 1992. Strangers in the Land. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.

Higham, John. 1996. “In Place of a Sequel: A History of Nativism for Today.” Pp. 1-12
in Social Science Research Council on "Becoming America/America Becoming.
Sanibel Island, FL.

241

Hinckley, Ted C. 1962. “American Anti-Catholicism during the Mexican War.” Pacific
Historical Review 31 :121-137.

Hing, Bill Ong. 1993. Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy
1850-1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hofstadter, Richard. 1996. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hollinger, David A. 1995. Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. New York:
Basic Books.

Holt, Michael F. 1973. “The Politics of Impatience: The Origins of Know Nothingism.”
Journal of American History 60:309-331.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of
Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1995. “Women and Children First: new directions in anti-
immigrant politics.” Socialist Review 25:169-190.

Horowitz, Donald L. 1992. “Immigration and Group Relations in France and America.”
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences Bulletin 45 :9-30.

Hosokawa, Bill. 1969. Nisei: The Quiet Americans. New York: William Morrow and
Company.

Huber, Gregory A. 1997. “Neo-Isolationism, Balanced-Budget Conservatism, and the
Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants.” International Migration Review 31 2103 1-1054.

Hughey, Michael W. 1992. “Americanism and Its Discontents: Protestantism, Nativism,
and Political Heresy in America.” International Journal of Politics, Culture and
Society 5:533-553.

lgnatiev, Noel. 1995. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge.
Inniss, Lolita K. Buckner. 1996. “California's Proposition 187—Does it Mean What it

Says? Does it Say What it Means? A Textual and Constitutional Analysis.”
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal :577-622.

Isbister, John. 1996. The Immigration Debate: Remaking America. West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.

Jiobu, Robert M. 1990. Ethnicity and Inequality. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

242

Johnson, Kevin R. 1995. “Public Benefits and Immigration: The Intersection of
Immigration Status, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class.” UCLA Law Review 42:1509-1563.

Johnson, Kevin R. 1997. “The New Nativism: Something Old, Something New,
Something Borrowed, Something Blue.” Pp. 165--189 in Immigrants Out! The New
Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F.
Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Jones, Maldwyn Allen. 1992. American Immigration. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Kadetsky, Elizabeth. 1994. “Bashing Illegals in California.” Pp. 416-422 in The Nation.

Kanstroom, Daniel. 1997. “Dangerous Undertones of the New Nativism: Peter Brimelow
and the Decline of the West.” Pp. 300-317 in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and
the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York:
New York University Press.

Karst, Kenneth L. 1989. Belonging to America: Equal Citizenship and the Constitution.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kawanabe, Kenzo S. 1996. “American Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Against Asian Pacific
Immigrants: The Present Repeats the Past.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal
10:681-706.

Keely, Charles B. 1998. Globalization and Human Resource Management:
Nonimmigrant Visa Strategies and Behavior of U.S. Firms. New York: Center for
Migration Studies.

Kitano, Harry H.L. 1981. “Japanese.” Pp. 561-571 in Harvard Encyclopedia of American
Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Knapp, Kiyoko Karrrio. 1996. “The Rhetoric of Exclusion: The Art of Drawing a Line
Between Aliens and Citizens.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 10:401-440.

Knobel, Dale T. 1996. "America for the Americans ": The Nativist Movement in the
United States. London: Twayne Publishers.

Kraut, Alan M. 1986. “Silent Strangers: Germs, Genes and Nativism in John Higham's
Strangers in the Land.” American Jewish History 76:142-158.

Krikorian, Mark. 1995. “A Flawed Jewel.” Immigration Review 22: 14-16.

Lafitte, Francois. 1988. The Internment of Aliens. London: Libris.

243

Lal, Barbara Ballis. 1995. “Symbolic Interaction Theories.” American Behavioral
Scientist 38:421-441.

Lane, AT. 1987. Solidarity or Survival? American Labor and European Immigrants,
1830-1924. New York: Greenwood Press.

Lee, Sharon M. 1989. “Asian immigration and American race-relations: from exclusion
to acceptance?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 12:368-390.

LeMay, Michael C. 1994. Anatomy of a Public Policy: The Reform of Contemporary
Immigration Law. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Leonard, Ira M., and Robert D. Parmet. 1971. American Nativism, 1 830-1860. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Light, Ivan. 1996. “Nationalism and Anti-Immigrant Movements.” Pp. 58-63 in Society.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Earl Raab. 1978. The Politics of Unreason: Right- Wing
Extremism in America, 1 790-1977. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lopez, David, and Yen Espiritu. 1990. “Panethnicity in the United States: a theoretical
fiamework.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13:198-224.

Ludmerer, Kenneth M. 1972. “Genetics, Eugenics, and the Immigration Restriction Act
of 1924.” Pp. 367-3 89 in Nativism, Discrimination, and Images of Immigrants, edited
by George E. Pozzetta. New York: Garland Publishing.

Luebke, Fredrick. 1974. Bonds of Loyalty: German Americans and World War 1. De
Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois Press.

Luebke, Fredrick. 1987. Germans in Brazil: A Comparative History of Cultural Conflict
During World War I. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

Luker, Kristin. 1985. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Lutton, Wayne, and John Tanton. 1994. The Immigration Invasion. Petoskey, MI: The
Social Contract Press.

Malone, Linda A. 1995. International Law. Larchmont, NY: Emanuel.
Malthus, T. R. 1992. An Essay on the Principle of Population; or A View of its past and
present Eflects on Human Happiness; With an Inquiry into our Prospects respecting

the future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which it occasions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

244

Martin, Philip. 1995. “Proposition 187 in California.” International Migration Review
29:255-263.

Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1994. Designing Qualitative Research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Massey, Douglas S. 1993. “Latinos, Poverty, and the Underclass: A New Agenda for
Research.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 15:449-475.

Massey, Douglas S. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States.”
Population and Development Review 21:631-652.

Massey, Douglas S. 1998. “March of Folly: U.S. Immigration Policy After NAFTA.” Pp.
22-33 in The American Prospect.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaqin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and
J. Edward Taylor. 1993. “Theories of lntemational Migration: A Review and
Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19:431-466.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaqin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and
J. Edward Taylor. 1994. “An Evaluation of lntemational Migration Theory: The North
American Case.” Population and Development Review 20:699-751.

McCall, Michal M., and Howard S. Becker. 1990. “Introduction.” in Symbolic Interaction
and Cultural Studies, edited by Howard S. Becker and Michal M. McCall. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

McCall, Michal M., and Judith Wittner. 1990. “The Good News About Life History.”
Pp. 46-89 in Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, edited by Howard S. Becker
and Michal M. McCall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, Thomas. 1994. The Critical Theory of J a rgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

McCauley, Timothy. 1990. “Nativism and Social Closure: A Comparison of Four Social
Movements.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 31 :86-93.

McCleary, GP. 1968. The Malthusian Population Theory. London: Faber & Faber
Limited.

McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McDonnell, Patrick J. 1996. “New Citizens From Latin America Back Clinton, Poll
Finds.” in Los Angeles Times.

245

Merton, Robert K. 1949. “Discrimination and the American Creed.” Pp. 99-126 in
Discrimination and the National Welfare, edited by Robert M. MacIver. New York:
Harper & Row.

Miller, Randall M. 1985. “The Enemy Within: Some Effects of Foreign Immigrants on
Antebellum Southern Cities.” Pp. 390-413 in Nativism, Discrimination, and Images of
Immigrants, edited by George E. Pozzetta. New York: Garland Publishing.

Mills, C. Wright. 1940. “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive.” American
Sociological Review 5:904-913.

Mills, Nicolaus. 1996. “Lifeboat Ethics and Immigration Fears.” Dissent 43:37-44.

Mitchell, Christopher. 1992. “Western Hemisphere Immigration and the United States
Foreign Policy.” University Park, PA:: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Morgan, Scott M. 1987. “Regressivism in the Progressive Era: Immigrants, Eugenists,
and Ethnic Displacement.” Pp. 197-228 in People in Upheaval, edited by Scott
Morgan and Elizabeth Colson. New York: Sage.

Muller, Thomas. 1997. “Nativism in the Mid-19903.” Pp. 105-118 in Immigrants Out!
The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by
Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Murphy, Paul L. 1964. “Sources and Nature of Intolerance in the 19203.” Journal of
American History 51:60-76.

Nagel, Joane. 1995. “Resource Competition Theories.” American Behavioral Scientist
38:442-458.

Nagel, Joane. 1998. “Masculinity and nationalism: gender and sexuality in the making of
nations.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 :242-269.

Neuman, Gerald L. 1996. Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and
Fundamental Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Neuman, W. Lawrence. 1994. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Noel, Donald 1. 1968. “A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification.” Social Problems
16: 1 57-1 72.

Noiriel, Gerard. 1996. The French Melting Pot: Immigration, Citizenship, and National
Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

246

Oakrnura, Raymond. 1982. “The American Concentration Camps: A Cover-Up Through
Euphemistic Terminology.” The Journal of Ethnic Studies 10:95-108.

Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From
the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

Palmer, Howard. 1982. “Ethnic Relations in Wartime: Nationalism and European
Minorities in Alberta during the Second World War.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 14:1-
23.

Palmer, Howard. 1986. “Strangers in the Land: A Canadian Perspective.” American
Jewish History 76:1 17-124.

Panayi, Panikos. 1990. “National and Racial Minorities in Total War.” Immigrants and
Minorities 9: 1 78-194.

Papademetriou, Demetrios G. 1996. The F altering of European Integration: Migration
and Related Issues. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Papademetriou, Demetrios G., and Kimberly A. Hamilton. 1996. Converging Paths to
Restriction: French, Italian, and British Responses to Immigration. Washington, DC:
Carnegie Endowment for lntemational Peace.

Passel, Jeffrey S., and Barry Edmonston. 1994. “Immigration and Race: Recent Trends in
Immigration to the United States.” Pp. 31-71 in Immigration and Ethnicity: The
Integration of America's Newest Arrivals, edited by Jeffrey S. Passel and Barry
Edmonston. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Pedraza, Silvia. 1991. “Women and Migration: The Social Consequences of Gender.”
Annual Review of Sociology 17:303-325.

Pedraza, Silvia, and Rubén Rumbaut. 1995. Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race,
and Ethnicity in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Perea, Juan F. 1992. “Demography and Distrust.” Minnesota Law Review 77:269-373.
Perea, Juan F. 1997. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-10 in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and
the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York:

New York University Press.

Perea, Juan F. (Ed.). 1997. Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant
Impulse in the United States. New York: New York University Press.

247

Peterson, Wallace C., and Paul S. Estenson. 1992. Income, Employment, and Economic
Growth. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Phillips, Michael M. 1996. “Scholars Facing Joblessness Seek Curbs on Immigration.” in
The Wall Street Journal.

Pitt, Leonard. 1961. “The Beginnings of Nativism in California.” Pacific Historical
Review 30.

Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Alex Stepick. 1993. City on the Edge: A Transformation of Miami.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 530:74-96.

Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population
Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe.” American
Sociological Review 60:586-611.

Raphael, Marc Lee (Ed.). 1986. “A Reexamination of a Classic Work in American
Jewish History: John Higham's Strangers in the Land [special issue].” American
Jewish History 76:107-226.

Roberts, Dorothy E. 1997. “Who May Give Birth to Citizens? Reproduction, Eugenics,
and Immigration.” in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant
Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York
University Press.

Rodriguez, Nestor P. 1997. “The Social Construction of the U.S.-Mexico Border.” in
Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea New York: New York University Press.

Roediger, David R. 1993. The Wages of Whiteness.: Race and the Making of the
American Working Class. London: Verso.

Roosens, Eugeen E. 1989. Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Rose, Peter I. 1993. “Tempest-Tost: Exile, Ethnicity, and the Politics of Rescue.”
Sociological Forum 8:5-24.

Rosenthal, Harry F. 1994. “Panel wants to stop illegal immigrants.” Pp. 5A in Detroit
Free Press.

248

Ross, William G. 1994. Forging New Freedoms: Nativism, Education, and the
Constitution, 191 7-192 7. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Rothman, Hal K. 1998. The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United
States Since 1945. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Rubin, Jay. 1978. “Black Nativism: The European Irnrrrigrant in Negro Thought, 1830-
1860.” Phylon 39: 193-202.

Ruefle, William, William H. Ross, and Diane Mandell. 1993. “Attitudes Toward
Southeast Asian Immigrants in a Wisconsin Community.” International Migration
Review 27:877-898.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1994. “The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and
Segmented Assimilation Among Children of Immigrants.” International Migration
Review 28:748-794.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1994. “Origins and Destinies: Immigration to the United States Since
World War II.” Sociological Forum 9:583-621.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1997. “Ties That Bind: Immigration and Immigrant Families in the
United States.” Pp. 3-46 in Immigration and the Family, edited by Alan Booth, Ann C.
Crouter, and Nancy Landale. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Samora, Julian. 1971. Los Mojados: The Wetback Story. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press.

sanchez, George J. 1997. “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and Rise of Nativism in
Late Twentieth Century America.” International Migration Review 31 :1009-1030.

Sénchez, George J. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity
in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1946. “Portrait of the Antiserrrite.” Partisan Review 13:163-178.

Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Scheff, Thomas J. 1994. “Emotions and Identity: A Theory of Ethnic Nationalism.” Pp.
277-3 03 in Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, edited by Craig Calhoun.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Schutte, Gerhard. 1995. What Racists Believe: Race Relations in South Afiica and the
United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

249

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Department of Justice. 1996. 1994
Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kian M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification: A Comparative
Approach. New York: MacMillan Company.

Simon, Julian L. 1986. Theory of Population and Economic Growth. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.

Simon, Julian L. 1989. The Economic Consequences of Immigration. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell (in association with the Cato Institute).

Simon, Julian L. 1990. Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and
Immigration. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Simon, Julian L. 1996. The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

3

Simon, Rita J. 1993. “Old Minorities, New Immigrants: Aspirations, Hopes, and Fears.’
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:61-73.

Simon, Rita J., and Susan H. Alexander. 1993. The Ambivalent Welcome: Print Media,
Public Opinion and Immigration. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Smelser, Neil J. 1965. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: The Free Press.

Smith, Anthony D. 1972. “Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Social Change.”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 13:1-20.

Smith, James P., and Barry Edmonston. 1997. “The New Americans: Economic,
Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration.” . Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “The "American Creed" and American Identity: The Limits of
Liberal Citizenship in the United States.” Western Political Quarterly 41:225-251.

Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Smith, Susan J. 1993. “Immigration and nation-building in Canada and the United
Kingdom.” Pp. 50-77 in Constructions of Race, Place, and Nation, edited by Peter
Jackson and Jan Penrose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Smith, Wade A. 1981. “Racial Tolerance as a Function of Group Position.” American
Sociological Review 46:558-573.

250

Snow, CR 1964. The Two Cultures: and a Second Look. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Song, Miri, and David Parker. 1995. “Commonality, Difference and the Dynamics of
Disclosure in In-Depth Interviewing.” Sociology 29:241-256.

Sowell, Thomas. 1980. Ethnic America: A History. New York: Basic Books.
Sowell, Thomas. 1987. A Conflict of Visions. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Sowell, Thomas. 1994. Race and Culture: A World View. New York: Basic Books.

Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational
Membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Star, Alexander. 1997. “Don't Look Back: A proposal for our roots-obsessed culture.”
Pp. 81-83 in The New Yorker.

State Ballot Measures. [Online] Available http://Primary98.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/, July
10, 1998.

Stefancic, Jean. 1997. “Funding the Nativist Agenda.” Pp. 119-135 in Immigrants Out!
The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by
Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1989. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America.
Boston: Beacon Press.

Stone, John. 1995. “Race, Ethnicity, and the Weberian Legacy.” American Behavioral
Scientist 38:391-406.

Strauss, Anselm L. 1991. Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Streisand, Betsy. Is it hasta la vista for bilingual ed? [Online] Available
http:www.usnews.com/usnews/ news/enghigh.htm, November 18, 1997.

Takaki, Ronald. 1990. Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th-Century America. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Takaki, Ronald. 1994. “Introduction.” Pp. 3-8 in From Difierent Shores: Perspectives on

Race and Ethnicity in America, edited by Ronald Takaki. New York: Oxford
University Press.

251

Takaki, Ronald. 1994. “Reflections on Racial Patterns in America.” Pp. 24-35 in From
Diflerent Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, edited by Ronald
Takaki. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tatalovich, Raymond. 1993. “Who Sponsors Official Language Legislation? A
Comparative Analysis of Fourteen States.” Southeastern Political Review 21:721-735.

Tatalovich, Raymond. 1997. “Official English as Nativist Backlash.” Pp. 78-102 in
Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United
States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New York University Press.

Teitelbaum, Michael S., and Jay Winter. 1998. A Question of Numbers: High
Immigration, Law Fertility, and the Politics of National Identity. New York: Hill &
Wang.

Thomas, W. 1., and Dorothy Swayne Thomas. 1928. The Child in America. New York:
Knopf.

Thurow, Lester C. 1980. The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities of
Economic Change. New York: Penguin Books.

Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press.

Torres, Luis A. 1993. “The National English Only Movement, Past and Future.” Pp. 251-
264 in American Mosaic: Selected Readings on America's Multicultural Heritage,
edited by Young 1. Song and Eugene C. Kim. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1991. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Turner, Jonathan H. 1994. Sociology: Concepts and Uses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ueda, Reed. 1981. “Naturalization and Citizenship.” Pp. 734-748 in Harvard
Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. 1997. “Becoming an American: Immigration
and Immigrant Policy.” Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.

Walby, Sylvia. 1996. “Woman and Nation.” in Mapping the Nation, edited by Gopal
Balakrishnan. London: Verso.

Waldinger, Roger. 1996. “Who Makes the Beds? Who washes the dishes?: Black/
Immigrant Competition Reassessed.” Pp. 265-288 in Immigrants and Immigration
Policy: Individual Skills, Family Ties, and Group Identities, edited by H.O. Duleep
and Phanindr V. Wunnava: JAI Press.

252

Waldinger, Roger. 1996a. Still the Promised City? Afiican Americans and New
Immigrants in Post-Industrial New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waters, Mary. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.
Webster, Yehudi O. 1992. The Racialization of America. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Weiner, Myron. 1995. The Global Migration Crisis. New York: Harper Collins College
Publishers.

Weiner, Myron. 1996. “Ethics, National Sovereignty and the Controls of Immigration.”
International Migration Review 30: 171-197.

Wellman, David T. 1994. Portraits of White Racism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Wirnmer, Andreas. 1997. “Explaining xenophobia and racism: a critical review of current
research approaches.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 20:17-41.

Winant, Howard. 1994. Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Winant, Howard. 1997. “Behind Blue Eyes: Whiteness and Contemporary U.S. Racial
Politics.” in 0;?“ White, edited by Michelle Fine, Louis Weis, Linda C. Powell, and L.
Munn Wong. New York: Routledge.

Wittke, Carl. 1936. German-Americans and the World War. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society.

Woldemikael, Tekle M. 1987. “Assertion Versus Accommodation: A Comparative
Approach to Intergroup Relations.” American Behavioral Scientist 30:411-428.

Wright, Lawrence. 1994. “One Drop of Blood.” Pp. 46-55 in The New Yorker.

Yinger, J. Milton. 1994. Ethnicity: Source of Conflict? Source of Strength? Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

Zavella, Patricia. 1997. “The Tables Are Turned: Immigration, Poverty, and Social
Conflict in California Communities.” in Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the
Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea. New York: New
York University Press.

253

Zimmerman, Warren. 1995. “Migrants and Refugees: A Threat to Security?” Pp. 88-116
in Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration and U.S. Policy, edited
by Michael S. Teitelbaum and Myron Weiner. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

254

I}

l.fr

)1. .’ LII t

"1111111111111111111115