“Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America” by Peter Schrag (pp. 2-6)
Briefly reiterate some of the main points made in the first half of the article. In what way does the Plenary Powers Doctrine of the Supreme Court fit into the history that the author teaches us?
Also, briefly note the topic that you wish to research for the final project.
The first half of the article, “Unwanted Immigration and Nativism in America,” addresses the xenophobia that effected immigrants from many different countries. The article talks about many people whom created doctrines that tried to keep immigrants out of the country. Also, many men published false information that stated non-Anglos were morons and inferior. They tried to spread fear throughout America and they claimed the country should be purified. Many of these claims were made in the 1800s and surprisingly, in the 2000s. There were ethnic groups created like WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protest) which urged to make America a purely anglo society. Unfortunately, “eugenic sterilization” (Schrag 5) is still alive and well today, although not as prominent as it was in the past.
The history of racism and xenophobia relates to the Plenary Powers Doctrine. The Doctrine is a federal policy on immigration. The Doctrine gives the Supreme court “sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty” (Center for Immigration Studies). The Doctrine gives Congress the capability to make immigration laws that are discriminatory and otherwise unfair.
The article relates to the Plenary Powers Doctrine by showing how people in the past have tried to control immigration in America. Many “immigration restrictionists” (Schrag 3) in the article scared Americans by talking about the danger of having immigrants in America. There was “the new eugenic “science” which seemed to prove that virtually all the “new” immigrants” (Schrag 5) were inferior compared to Anglos. The fear gradually spread and is still present today. This discrimination helped shape the Plenary Powers Doctrine into what it is today.
The topic I wish to research for my final project is something related to social justice. So possibly researching the rights labor workers have (and don’t have) and how their livelihood is or isn’t improving throughout America.
The first half of the article, “The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America,” dates back immigration to the 1800s where instead of Mexican immigration, America saw a large influx of immigration from Southern Italians, Greeks, Slavs, Jews, and Chinese. The article talks about the vast similarities in nativism, xenophobia, and racism from previous decades up to current day. It notes that immigration has always been a controversial topic in history and the cycle of needing and seeking immigrants to shutting them out and deporting them when they’re no longer needed is still relevant. Additionally, the article proves the existence of anti-immigrant sentiment to long before the issue of Mexican immigration was popular. The portrayal of Mexican immigrants was almost identical to the characterization of the Italians, Jews, and Slavs of a century before, and of the Irish and Germans before them — “people not fit for our society”. It also compares how some viewed immigration to how some view it now, like when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge portrays immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe as “birds of passage…. Bringing crime, disease, anarchism, and filth and competing with honest American workers.” (much like how Donald Trump described Mexicans in one of his speeches). Moreover, the Plenary Powers Doctrine of the Supreme Court fits into the history that the author teaches us by proving how political figures in the past have tried to control immigration and the shifting immigration restriction policies. Especially when the article mentions the comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2007 and how it was defeated in congress with the threat of filibusters. To conclude, the topic I wish to research for the final project is the State of Latinos in United States Higher Education, or something along the lines of that.
The first half of the article, “Unwanted Immigration and Nativism in America,” addresses that immigration has been a problem in America since before the Latinos. Over the course of the semester we have only been looking at how Mexican immigrants lives change through the immigration process, but this article brings into play the immigration processes of other races as well. Another thing the article opens up with is going all the way back to the nations founding ideals. It says that what makes America’s problems with immigration so significant is that they contradict the nation’s founding ideals. This is interesting because after this is stated the article goes on to talk about the abundant ways in which Angelo’s discriminate against immigrants. The Plenary Powers doctrine fits in with this article because the article mentions the “heavy-handed federal, state, and local raids of recent years to round up, deport, and occasionally imprison illegal immigrants”. Based on the Plenary Powers doctrine this would not be possible because only the political branches of government is permitted to handle immigration cases. It also ties in to the article because the article talks about some of the past presidents opinions on immigration and compares them with Obama’s opinions on immigration, stressing the fact that it is up to the political branch to handle immigration.
The topic I wish to research is the progression or non progression of working conditions and labor of latino immigrants in America.
The article touched on a lot that we have been going over in class, how xenophobia and racism runs rampant in the United States even though it was founded by people who wanted to escape discrimination and persecution. It talked about name-calling and who people believe deserve to be and belong in the United States. No one gets to choose who comes into America, or at least according to the article no one should. It says that we still have so much more to go in order to change America to be better, as it wasn’t perfect to begin with. Overcrowding made it so it was easier to be racist and kick certain people out, and stereotypes about violence blamed the newcomers. The article explained about the irony of people who want to make peace with all peoples, trying to restrict immigration by adding new immigration laws into play. People kept seeing Japanese people as those who are dangerous to America and its communities, even though they are supposed to be trying to help people of race.
The Plentary Powers played a role when “dangerous” immigrants came into the country and therefore more immigration restrictions were added. The fear of any one of race seemed to spread out, especially concerning Chinese, Japanese, and Latin Americans. Everyone was scared that the economy was gonna too bad to get jobs if people like this kept coming into the country.
My topic is the discrimination of women in a male dominated society throughout American society.
What I got from the article was about the early issues of separatism. It was stated how change would be seen as a bad thing if the country started out well. This was important, as an opener, because it leads into all of the subjective actions from the “other” races such as Central Americans and the Asians. From what was read, nativism wasn’t seen as the native americans being the initial inhabitants, but as the Europeans being the first to make the land a flourished one. It was obvious that the land want WASP to take over, as a unifying belief, because they didn’t stand for unwanted immigration. A way the Plenary Doctrine relates to this article because it shows how immigration was attempted to be controlled. The article and the doctrine together prove otherwise; that immigration can’t be something that has to be contained.