The US Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted US citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person.”
Congress later passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which refined and further established immigration quotas and, most notably, excluded immigration from all “Asiatic Barred Zones”, excepting immigrants from Japan and Philippines. The Act, according to the U.S. Office of the Historian, was intended to “…preserve the ideal of American homogeneity,” by excluding non-Western peoples. The quota systems were designed to ease restrictions on Western peoples, notably from the British Isles and Southwestern Europe, at the expense of the remainder of the world, thus preserving America’s heritage as a predominantly Anglo-Saxon society. This was less than 100 years ago.
The bill was one of many passed with broad acceptance in this period. Probably none were more famous, though, than the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which, as one might guess, effectively barred all Chinese-born citizens from gaining entry to the United States. This was preceded by the Page Act of 1875, which barred Asian women from entering the United States.
Anti-Asian sentiment was strong in the late 19th century. Between 1882 and 1900, the American economy experienced six separate economic recessions of varying severity. The Industrial Revolution and massive railroad construction projects were major sources of employment nationwide. Railroad labor was largely unskilled and competition for jobs was fierce. Unions were still in their early years. Asians, and specifically people from China, were entering the country and taking positions for wages beneath what their American counterparts were willing to accept. The resulting wage pressures, coupled with social issues stemming for cultural differences and Americans negative views on Asian women (a la Page Act), created tension between the white-dominated American workforce and the newly-entered Asians. These tensions ultimately led to the Exclusion Act, meant to protect American workers and explicitly discriminate against Chinese and other Asian nationals. This was less than 150 years ago.
Similarly, the 19th Amendment, which authorized women’s suffrage, was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified into law in the summer of 1920. We’re just now approaching the 100-year anniversary of ratification.
Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding the “separate but equal” doctrine) was decided in 1896 and was good law for 58 years until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the United States. Less than 75 years ago, the U.S. government condoned and sanctioned race-based policies that almost exclusively created preferential treatment for white people at the expense of all minorities, and Black people in particular. It wasn’t until 1948 and the Shelley v. Kraemer case, in which the Supreme Court prohibited nationwide enforcement of racially-restrictive covenants in property deeds, which had served to promote racial homogeneity in housing developments. All this while our grandparents were still alive.
From 1963 to 1965, the Johnson Administration passed landmark legislation in the promotion of civil rights: among the list, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. In just 9 months, LBJ effectively shifted America away from its then-scattered and segregationist domestic policy into what is now the bedrock of the inclusive American social policy.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins Formula, which was the basis of the national immigration quotas that the earlier, race-based immigration Acts rested upon. The Act did not freely open up U.S. borders, but it greatly enhanced the ability of all people, especially those from historically disenfranchised counties, to enter the United States and attempt to achieve citizenship. The Civil Rights Act requires little explanation, but it effectively eradicated racism and discrimination out of federal law (which is not to say, out of practice).
It’s important to understand the recency of these events in the context of greater American social policy. As Americans under the age of 30, we’ve been raised post-Brown, post-Civil Rights Act, and post-National Origins Formula. We are one of the first generations in the history of modern humanity to live in a legislatively discrimination-free society. Legislation in this case far precedes social acceptance of the policies enacted. The oldest of legislators still in Congress were alive during the Plessy era. They were reasoning young people. Those policies are their foundations; that’s what they grew up with. We largely accept these new liberal maxims (acceptance, equality, etc.) as given, but we are unique in thinking so, at least as a majority. Progress takes time. As older generations retire and the legislative body begins to be inclusive of people whose foundations are built upon a vision for a more equitable society, laws and social acceptances should shift accordingly.
If you believe that human beings are part-nature, part-nurture, you would accept that a person’s fundamental worldview is at least partially based on their experiences and the things they learn in their developmental phase. Holding with that view, we must learn to understand the world our elders developed within. The same is true for them.
Times will continue to change, and American society will continue to evolve. We are at the intersection of two highly divergent generations with drastically different experiences and value systems.
Grant McClernon 