Immigration (Part Three)

We cannot ignore the unpleasant fact that the current debate over immigration has racial overtones. The majority of recent immigrants, legal and illegal, have come from Mexico and other countries in Latin America. As the rhetoric over immigration has escalated in recent months, many pundits have questioned whether our nation's growing Latino population is willing and able to "assimilate" into the larger culture. Most recently, the waving of Mexican flags at immigration rallies and the writing of a Spanish-language version of "The Star Spangled Banner" have been considered as evidence that Latino immigrants aren't truly loyal to the United States.

It's important to remember that immigration is not new, nor are concerns that "foreigners" are unwilling and unable to "assimilate." Over the last month, I've been reading an excellent book by Philip Fradkin, "The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself," that provides insight into similar sentiments felt a century ago. At that time, however, it was immigrants from Asia, not Latin America, that were the focus. I'd like to share some excerpts from the book here (my emphases in bold):

<<<>>>

The governor of the state had voiced his opinion on the immigration of the Chinese and Europeans in a letter to a correspondent that spring. "You must keep in mind, with inconsiderable exceptions, the Chinese who have immigrated to this country have represented that lowest class of the Chinese population. The immigration of a corresponding class of Europeans is not regarded as desirable, and much more of the incoming Chinese of this class is likely to be a detriment to the country." (p. 290)

<<<>>>

The Washington Star was blunt: "About the only gratifying feature of the San Francisco horror is the fact that Chinatown has been destroyed. The pestilential community is no more." (p. 294)

<<<>>>

The troubles then shifted to the schools. One thousand new Japanese immigrants were arriving in California every month. Japanese students in their twenties, eager to learn English, sat next to grade school children in San Francisco - not a good mix, thought white parents ... With the number of Japanese increasing, the board of education, pushed by the exclusion league, sought construction funds in 1905 for additions to the Oriental School so that it could accomodate Japanese students. The reason given by the board of education for this further segregation of the races was that "our children should not be placed in any position where their youthful impressions may be affected by association with pupils of the Mongolian race." (p. 300)

<<<>>>

Additional controversy arose around the issue of Japanese laborers taking the jobs of white laborers. A resolution unanimously passed the state legislature urging drastic limitations on the immigration of "immoral, intemperate, quarrelsome men bound to labor for a pittance." (p. 300)

<<<>>>

To the Chicago Tribune, which asked his opinion on the Japanese question in early December, however, Phelan was San Francisco's "foremost citizen." The former mayor telegraphed the newspaper: "Japanese naturalization is out of the question. They will not assimilate, remain foreign, and are loyal to their home government. Their competition will undermine the standards of American civilization and destroy the native population. Weakened by the infusion of Japanese and harboring an enemy within our gates, this Coast would be an easy prey in case of an attack. Not less dangerous, hoever, is the silent invasion which is now going on. Japanese coolies should, like Chinese coolies, be excluded. It is simply a question in the long run of the preservation of the Republic." (p. 301)

<<<>>>

Stating that "for all practical purposes" Hawaii was a Japanese colony, the Chronicle warned: "What we are fighting for on this coast is that California and Oregon and Washington shall not become what the Territory of Hawaii now is. If the Japanese are permitted to come here freely nothing can prevent that except revolution and massacre, which would be certain." (p. 302)

<<<>>>

The real issue was not so much about schools, however, as it was about halting immigration, preventing "race suicide," and protecting white workers. A labor newspaper stated that "the school question is a mere incident in our campaign for Japanese Exclusion." (p. 302)

<<<>>>

History tends to repeat itself. One hundred years later, the rhetoric over immigration is slightly less alarmist and overtly racist in nature, yet it echoes many of the same themes. Today's Latino immigrants are regarded as the "worst" element of their home countries, bringing the problems of Mexico and the rest of Latin America into the United States and "taking" the jobs of native-born Americans. Many view the growing Latino population as an "invading" force that will ultimately destablize the United States and destroy our culture much in the same way that many viewed the growing Asian population in 1906.

When it comes to the immigration debate, the greatest challenge before the American public today is whether it is willing to accept the lessons of history and divorce policy choices from racial concerns. The legalities of immigration cannot be tied to what race the immigrants are and where they come from. The ethnic groups vilified in previous generations, such as the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Chinese, and the Japanese, did eventually "assimilate" and became loyal to the United States. Mexicans will too.