2-hours assignment

Race and Ethnicity il) the United States:

Our Differences and Our Roots

Reid Luhman Eastern Kentucky University

THOMSON

WADSWORTH

Australia • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

New Immigrants from Europe

The United States received much of its modern character from European immi- grants who arrived benveen 1880 and 1914. Their numbers alone-26 million new Americans-would leave a permanenr ma rk. Although immigrants co nri n ued to come from Germany (both P rotesranr and Catholic), Scandin3via, znd the British Isle.~. ~ourhcastern Europe w11s the source o f most (Figure 6 . 1). People from east - ern Germ~ny, Poland, Russ ia , Italy, Greece, Hu.nl!'ary-all the Sia.vie counmcs- arrived in

1 ew 'cork ha rbor looki ng for opporrun i~'. flee in g oppreJ;~ i on, o r bmh .

Space constraints prohi bit cloin~ even m inimal justice to this mass o f h umnnii:y. Rather than cryi ng co tell too many stories, we focus on cwo groups-ft~li:ms and eastern Eoropc~n Jews-to provide a fl avor of the d iversirv of these new rm- migr~nts and th e time in h istory they arrived. These two grou1;s were sclccced for the size of th eir immigration plus their cultural differences from mainsrrcam America in 1880.

3.6

3.4 3.2

3.0 ~ 2.8 :.§ 2.6 '@ 2.4 2. 2.2 .§ 2.0 -e 1.s bO

- ·~ 1.6

1.4

1.2 1.0

0.8 0.6 0.4

0.2

Th e "Nt711 hmnigmntr" and tht Old Minoritiei: l 880-J 965 • 179

EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES, 1820-1930

Northwestern European immigranls Southeastern European immigrants

•Each point on graph includes five year totals beginning with year lisred.

,1 I\ I\ I \ I I I \ I I I I f I I I I I

I \ I l I I I l

I \ I \ J I ,,

I I I

V'

~~00~00~~~~00~~~~00~~~~~~~ ~~b~~~~~~~~~~~8~o~o~o~

U.S. Bureau of che Census, b1ttrnPJirmal M1graritm and Na'14raJhat1ori (\'VJ.shingtoa, DC, 1970)

Th e Italians

The first Italians to enter the United States were men, either single or mvcling with- out their wives and children. J:vpically, they were of working age, unskilled (44 per- cent), and illiterate (Brown, 1989; Cohen 1W, 1992) .. The primary goal for most was to earn money in the new country and rerurn home \li t:h it as they had i.n the p~t (Cohen M, 1992). Now that the Atlantic crossing was quicker, safer, and cheaper with the coming of the steamship, it was possible for these men t o go back and for-0 sev- eral times before finally bringing their fami lies over. In many cases, 11oi ves and children would remain in Italy for decades before being permanently reunited wi th their hus- bands atld fathers . By 1900, the Italian community in the United Srates was still only 25 percent women (Friedman-Kasaba, 1996).

· N, with most European imrnigr\lflts from the mid-1800s on , most Italians became urbanite.~ i..n che United Sllltes. By the l.880s, almost all European irrunigrants were being routed through the immigration erocessing center on Ellis Island in t!1e New fo rk harbor. After adm ission, ·cw York City was their first experience of Arnenca. One

180 • Part Two 1bc Cnst ofCharncten: E1111·an.ccnmd Exits

could ~d work_ thcr~c .an~ ~ove inro a growing lcaltan ethnic community where life s~cmcd less for:1gi1 . :sull, it did not rake Iral inn iillmigranis long ro learn of oppomm.i- oes elscw?erc. Even though the main ethnic community rema.ined in ~ew York City for years, fo1hans .appeared all over the United States in the early twentieth cenrury wi 1..h iz- abl~ c~mmumoes ~oug~out the eastern seaboard, in "cw Orleans (200 000 by 1920) ano even rura! Lou1s1ana m Texas, and the \'.lest (particularly in California) (Ba iamonte, 1989; Balboni _J991a; <?>rn and London, 1994; De Marco, 198 1; G2rro1ii, 1991).

As _the hahw1 _ethnic commllnity (''"Little Italy") grew in. ·cw fork City ttnd men ~vere )~med by ~e1r families, eco nomic sui:vival hecame a family affair. Men conrinued m th~ JOI.is rr~dmonally open to them as unskilled labor in conscruction, on railroads, and m facconcs .. \1any_ fo~d work through lcalia..'1 labor conl:l'llctor (pndrom) who wouJd supply group. o'. nnm1grant workers w American employers (Henderson, 19i6). Bcc~use t.hey were hmned to the lowest paying jobs it " 'as necess:in• for the rest of the fom1ly. ro work as \VeU. Sons tended to work ar jobs simila r ro thelr .fatht.:rs and onlv in mrc circumsr.mces were the>' allowed co attend the public school svstem. \Vives ~nd daughters al .o wurki:_d, but diffc:renc rules applied :md diffe rent jobs.were availnble.

S'>mc ot these d1_fferenc rules concerned marriage. Almnst a culniml universal at Lhe turn of ~e ~cn_net.h ccnrury, it was considered inapprop riate for married women !? work pu/l/icly. fh1s meant that w11ge labor or domestic sen -ice was ou t of tlie ques- aon for married lralian women. They could, howe\•er, help out in a family business if

/I group oflrnlinn "spot" Jodgl?rs lnuldlc inn B,~yard .<ll"l"ct tmcmcm.

The "New immigrants" and the Old Mino.-ities: I 880-1965 • 181

there was one (considered part of their assigned nw-ruring family role), rake in board- ers (if they had the room), or take home handwork to do in the secrecy of their kitchens. Thls handwork often consisted of sewing or piecework, but more often, Ital- ian women contributed to New York's booming business in an:ificial flowers. Married women and their daughters often spent evenings painstakingly putting together these ornaments to grace finer homes (Cohen M, 1992).

As for unmarried daughters, New York City offered many oppormnities but none very appealing. Daughters were expected to work-if anyone in the family attended school, it would be sons-and they could work anyw·here because they were urunar- ried. In 1905, 46 percent of all Itlllian women over the age of 16 were wage earners, twice the percentage for al! American single women (Cohen M, 1992). Young Italian girls made up large portions of the labor pool in clothing, candy, and box factories. In fact, 78 percent of wage-earning Italian women in New York City worked in factories, more than any other ethnic group in that city (Friedman-Kasaba, 1996). A~er a day's work, they would pick up the makings of artificial flowers to take home. Unlike their brothers, they were expected to rum over all of their earnings to the family (although many found ways around this). Marriage had to be postponed as long as the family needed this income (Friedman-Kasaba, 1996).

Movement up the economic ladder was slow for Italian immigrants, whose high rates of illiteracy coupled with lack of opportunity to utilize American education kept skills low. In addition, what being unskilled did not prevent, discrimination did. In 191 B, for example, when the American economy was short of labor, some job ad,•er- tisemems specified that they would accept "Italian or Colored," showing not only how desperate the employers were but the genera 1 ranking of me two ethnic groups on the emplO)'TTICnt ladder (Henderson, L 976). In 19 L 7, Italians had the highest ra~ of child mortality of any group in . cw York City (perhaps related to the fluff a11d chemicals from the homework women did) (Cohen M, 1992). It is not altogether surprising that some Italian Americans mrned to crime, but the stereotypes far outstrip the real.ity (G.lmbino, 1991). Recall that this phenomenon occurred with the Chinese. One of the ironies about stereotypical Italian criminal activity is that it really did not begin to occur until most Italian Americans started to assimilate to American culture.

New Jewish Immigrants

lo IBBO, of the 250,000 Jews who lived in the l:nited St:ites, the vast majority were German Jews. By 1924, approximately 4 million Jews lived in the United States, and almost all had "ties co eastern Europe (Daaiels, 1991). \:\'hat had been a relatively small, largely as imilated, and geographically dispersed minority beome a large, cul- rurallr distinct minority concentrated in Kew York City and orher large eastern cities.

Easrern European Jewish culrural differences not only cliscinguished them from mainscream American life but also from German Jewish culture in the United Scaces. £asrern European Jews brm1ghr traditional Judaism, not to be confused with Reform Judaism favored by mo.sr German Jews. Some of them also brought Hassidic Judaism- n n~w, somewhat mystical, and very so-ict offshoot ofJudaism-thac produced cloisre~ed urban neighborhoods in ew York and , ew Jersey. They brought rhe Yiddish

182 • Part Two The Cast of Chnracters: Entranm and Exits

language-<1 Jewish dialect based on Gennan-which was heard on the streets of ew York's Lower Eas Side and in irs th~ters, and read in its newspapers in the early cwen- tieth century. They brought the socialist politics of Europe, which were I.acer reflected in labor union activity. They also brought a belief in the foundation of an all-Jewish scare in their traditional homeland of Palestine. Eastern European Je ws were a diverse lot and their arri~-al was responsible fo r maior changes in me way American society operated.

Coming to America: From Eastern Europe to the Lower East Side Eastern Eu- ropean Jews flooded into the Loll'er East Side of New York City in the lace 1800s and earl}' 1900s, with approx.imately less than 30 percent vcnruring outside of New York (Daniels, 1991 ). By 1910, close to a million Jews were in ew York City, and half of them lived in the 1.5 square miles of the Lower East Side (Daniels, 1991; Henderson, 1976). Ac the turn of the century, the population density in rhac area was 700 people per acre (Howe, 1976). Unlike Italian irumigrants, rhese Jews were much more likely to immigrate as families. If parrs of families had tO remain behind for economic rea- sons, it was usually nm for as long as with Italian immigrants. By 1900, the sex ratio in the Jewi.sh community was even (Friedma n-Kasa ha 1996).

Married women in the Jewish community faced the same limitations we have seen in other ethnic communities of the period. By 1911 , only l percent worked outsi de the home (\N'einberg, 1988). Many cook in boarders and some did homework {although neither as frequently nor for as long as Italian housewives). B>' l 911, 56 percent of] cw- ish homes had at lt:ast one boarder ('11-'cinberg, 1988). The best solution for most of these women , however, was some kind of home business. In this mawter, business, cooking, and childcare could be combined efficiently. Of perhaps equal importance for the women iil\·oh-ed, they were not cut off from the community, as the following de- scription from Russian Jewish immigr:int daughter Mary Antin illustrates:

[B]ehind the store was the kitchen, where in the inten,als of slack trade, she did her cooking and washing. Arlington Street customers were used to waiting while the storekeeper salted the soup or rescued a loaf from the oven (quoted in Friedman-Kn.saha, l 996 : 129).

Once ag;iin, as long as a married woman remained at "home ," work was acceptable . Fathers, sons, nnd daughters were more likely co be employed om:side the home.

Few children among early inu11i1:,rr:ints attended school out of economic necessity. The Jewis h O"adition of litcrncr and education did play a role, however, in that 54 percent of Jewish inmugranL~ arriving berween 1899 and 1910 were lite.rate cmmpared °"'ith 26 percent of Italia n immigrnnrs (Cohen M, 1992). (!lie rates for Jewish men were even higher because onl y they were entitled to a religious education in Russia.) \;\/hen Jew- ish immigrant families could ·pare n child for education, they favored sons O\•er daughLers and younger chi!clren over older children (Cohen · 1992; Friedman- Kasaba, 1996). The logic behind the second preference wa.s thar older children could earn more, while younger ch ildren would be quicker to learn English. Bec:iuse rhc preferences \•aritd from family co family, sometimes younger daughrers were treated to American learning. By comparison '~ich Italian families , twice as many Jewish sons

The "New hmnigranti' and the Old Minorities: I 880-1965 • 183

finished high school in the first generation and three times as many in .the second gen- eration; Jewish girls were twice as likely to reach that level as their Italian counterparts (Cohen M , l 992). . ..

Part of the Jewish success with education was d~e to the skills and. tr:ad1uons th~y brought with them but much can be explained by their relaove econmruc success. Chil- dren could be spa;ed from the labor force. Although fa~ers and ~married children worked in many of the same clothing factories as Irahan children, J ew1sh men tended to have higher level (and better paid) positions, while Je~sh women earned 25 p7rcent more than Italian women (Cohen M, 1992). Much of this was no doubt due to their em- ployers: .. ;rrually all of the fuctorie.~ were owned by German J ~ws. WiU: the exception of many young [talian _imrnigrunt girls stationed at rows of sewmg machines, the cloth- ing business became Jewish froi_n top l'? bottom. By 1914, Jews made up 70 percent of the entire . cw York City clothing busmess (l-Ienderson, 1976) .. ln 19.00, 53 perc~nt of Jewish men, i7 percent of Jewish women, and 59 percent ofJew1s~ c~1ldr7n were m the "needle trades" (Fricdrnan-Kasaba, 1996). If we include all Jewish 1mJ11J.grants of the rime, regardless of job or loai.rion , the, avern~ed 14 ~o 20 percent more m ~alary than any other immigrant group. Perhaps more 1m.preSS1ve, they reac~ed . the income of native-born Americaru after less than five years m the economy ~Ch1S'A,ck, 1992). .

Although this story is beginning tO look like a ~leasa~t rcs.p1te rron:i all t:hc rcmbl.e immigrant ta les encountered thus fa r, the Je1\ish p1ccure 1s neither enurcly rosy nor_ is it without contradictions. For example, although Jews had the lowest rates of ~hild morralitv in -ew York City {rtalians had the highest), they also had one of _the bighcr rates of ~bortions (Cohen M, 1992; Lindenthal, 198 1; Weinberg, 1988). Jewish women wamed to keep their family size down for predomi'.13ntly economic ~e:isons . They pre= ferred (and were first in line fo:r) Margaret Sangers birth control clinics 3:°d her pam ph let, "v\lhat Every Married \Noman Should Kno"'" published !n Yidd~s_h for those avid readers (VV"einbcrg, 1988}. Meanwhile, 6rst-generaoon Jewish farrulies .suffer~/yd from high rates of abandonment by t:heir husbands and/or fathers. The ~e:zcisb Daiof Forward-a Yiddish la11guage e"· York Ciry newspaper-used co run ~ a;i~~ d , !issing Husbands" in which photographs of shirking males were pubhshe rie ~ man-Kasaba 1996). Part of the family breakups were oiused by poverty, but some we related to th~ emouonal problems of reuniting fat~li~ se~arate<l for several years by the serial immigration process so common lit the tllllC (W'crnberg, 1988).

· · s · · The German From Sweatshops to Universities: Overco~g Ano- enuosm

Jewi 5h-owned clothing factories in e1 York City were commonly called sweatsdbopths, · f f · · d ral floors each covere "'1 nt least by the workers. J\' ost actones conrnme seve • 11 rows of as many sewing machines as would fir. The machine operators were almosrda teena""' O'i:rls most eastern European Jews or Italians. Their job was to produce reathy-

.,-" ' k · 11 b tter employment an ro-we:ir clothing. As hard as die wor was, It was genera Y e d d b the availahle alternatives for urunigram girls. For Jewish girls, it harl the ad cb ?nus

h d r th ki · the Slime usiness of l>dng a family affai r: many of them a 1ll ers wor ng 1n (Glenn, 1990). . . · · imported

Low wages poor working conditions, and a tradition of labor acnvism 6

GI from Europe 1~adc this largely Jewish workforce volatile (Brandes, 197 ; anz,

!84 • Part Two Tbe Co.rt ofCbarnaers: E11tm11 ccs nn d Exitr

1976). In 1909 and 1910, 30,000 garment wor kers went on strike for 13 "eeks. Of these suikers, 21 ,000 were Jewish women and girls. They were joined by 2,000 young Italian women and some 6,000 men, mostly Jewish (Friedman-Kasaba, 1996; Henderson , 1976) . Although many young Italian women worked in the clothing trade, they were generally poorer and less involved in the strike than Jev.ish women . This strike succeeded in achie~ing higher wages for garment workers and served to found the International Ladies Gann.,nt \.Vorkcrs Un io n. Although this effort was successful for the workers, union activ ity i.J1 che early rwentieth century was a poten- tially dang erous undertaking . T he go\'emmenr genera lly was highly supportive of manufacturers who wished to prevent u nions. O ne garment worker union leader in Seattle-Rebecca August-found her~elf arrested and hdd in immigration jail for two months, charged with entering the country fo r 1mm oral purposes. " Immoral pur- poses" meant you were connected wi th pros tiruti on ('vVeinberg, l 988).

."'5 new ly arrived eastern Eur opea n Jews attemprecl co better their workplace and further the ir ed ucati o n, bo th th ey a nd German Jews $a w anti-Sem itism rise in the United St are . P erhaps ironically, wealrhicr .Je ws (mos tly Germon Jews initially) fa c1:d a greate r va ri ety o ( d iscrim inarion t.h an d id poorer J ews. incl uding co ntinued cli~crim­ ination in obtai n ing bmk Joans. In the ear ly twcn tiech cen rmy, they fac ed excl usio n from the better hotels and resorts as such praccccs became com~on . In o ne case , Nathan Straus-a co-ov;ner of .'v1acy's- was refused a room at a : cw J ersey hmel ; he

Out of economic .necessity. mnny cbiMren uf immigmnt fnmil irs ;;:n rkcd rnthPI· than rmmdiug school. such as tbu]tw;sb br.y 111 ~1·01-k in Nrw }01·k'.r gmw cnt d1rtrfrt.

Th r "New lm111igrn11ts " and the Old Mi110rities: 1880-1965 • 185

later returned to build another hotel right next to the offending one, except his was built twice a.s large (Cohen, 1984). Other Jewish ent;repreneurs continued this ap- proach well into the twenoeth century, creaung vacation resorts that catered almost exclusively to Jews.

Discrimination als.o appeared in private scho o ls, clubs, professional organiz.ations and housing. Real estate in upscale neighbo rhoods was commonly limited by restric~ rive covenants, much like their modem versions (e.g., resrricti,ons regarding house de- sign) except they included lists of racial and ethnic groups who could not buy the property even if the cu rrent owner wished ro sell to them. Such restrictions we re le- gal until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. As for schools and professional organi1.:1tions, only wealthier Jews were likely to encounter such problems; it would take a generation before eastern European Jews sought higher education and professional ca reers for themselves. On 1he cast co ast, they found themselves largely limited to srnte ins ci rutions of higher learning when the ivy-covered doors did not open.

Jews became included in a growing anti-immigration sentiment that stemmed from the massive overall turn-of-the-century immigration . Although these attitudes did not reach their peak until after World War I, the beginnings were already present. In 1907, Congress created the Dillingham Commission to study the question of im- migration to the United States. Three years of study produced a forty-two volume re- port, published in 1910 and 1911. The Commission concluded that (1) humans come from a wide variety of races, which genetically determined inferiority and superiority; (2) recent immigrants to the United States (including all Jews) were all of the inferior type; and (3) the government should strongly consider restricting immigration (Carter et al., 1996; Cohen, I 984). Congress took all of this ad~ice in 1924.

200 • Part Two Th• Cart of Characrm: Entra11w and &its

The Anti-Immigrant Twenties One might assume that the political changes that began in the African American com- munity during the 1920s would have riveted European American attention in that di- rection. Strangely enough, African Americans were really not seen as all that much of a threat during that decade; the threat would not be perceived until the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s. During the 1920s, Protestant America was much more focused on Asians, Catholics, and Jews, all of whom were current and po- tential future immigrants. An interesting collection of historical, economic, and sci- entific circumstances seemed to work almost in unison to maximize and rationalize their fears and prejudices. The result was the virtual end of legal American immigra- tion for many years. ·

Anti-Immigrant Attitudes

Recall first that anti-immigrant feeling was alive and well before the outbreak of World War I. Restrictions on Asian immigration already had a thirty-year tradition. In addition, the flood of most Catholic and Jewish immigrants from Europe reached its highest level in the years just before the war. Congress had already launched a large scale study of immigrants in America, reflecting that concern. Vl,,'orld War I is probably best viewed as a rime of economic prosperity coupled \vith distracted atten- tion . Both are clearly understandable, but the war's end removed the distraction and, within a few years, the prosperity. \Ve have already seen how the recession of the early 1920s stimulated race riots in the l:nited States; that same recession helped spur anti- immigrant attitudes.

Conveniently, the Ku Klux Klan had just been revived by William J. Simmons, who organized the new Klan in Atlanta on October 16, 1915. The original Klan formed in reaction to Reconstruction; the new Klan really did not have an agenda, but the original organization had recently been glamorized by the recent Hollywood film Birth of a Natirm. Enough members were attracted to encourage Simmons, who had organized several fraternal organizations for a profit (among other things, he sold in- surance to new members). By 1920, Simmons was joined in leading the Klan by two publicity agencs. The Klan moved North to where anti-immigrant attitudes were

The "New lmmir;rants" and the Old Minorities: 1880--1965 • 201

The schookhildrm 1 morning ritual of reciting the Pledge of Atlegimice was rmgina/Jy an attempt to reinforce new immigrantr' trryalry to tbe United States.

already brewing , and membership grew rapidly. Adapting t~ the scenery,_ the lnOs Klan practically ignored African Americans and Je~'S, spewmg moSt of its hate on Catholics. Simmons later sold his interest in the organization for $90,000, and the Klan. went on to be a major political force in 1923, prima'rily in Indiana and Ohlo. By 1.9.2~ it was largely disbanded, but in the meantime, it successfully suppo~ed ma~y police candidates who favored immigration restriction (Higham, 1981 ; Srruth, .1918):

A book by Madison Grant, Tbe Passing of the Great Race, was publis~ed in 1916~ Grant postulated that Europeans belonged tO three different races: rnoYlilg more 0d less from the northwest co the southeast, one would find ~ordi~, Alpines, an Mediterraneans (Grant, 1921). As w:idi the Klan, 1916 was not a prime yea~ for these ideas but a new edition of the book in 192 l was the right idea at the right ome. He;_~

' · · I ring the rac1;,u clearly was C\ide:nce that southeastern European unrrugr:mts were owe ed l stock of the United States. A few years before, the field of psychology produc. th ts

· lli ather an first intelligence (I.Q.) teSt, which was supposed to measure mte · ge:nce r che kn owledge. Amazingly, northweste rn Europeans (the very people who made up ccsr) obtained the highest scores on this new rest (Higham, 1981).

206 • Part Two The Cast of Cha1·acters: Entrances and EritJ

Many of the workers in both situations did not know they were being shipped in as strikebreakers (Meier and Ribera, 1993). v\lhen .Mexicans were not needed either in the fields or as saikebreakers, Americans used the technique of repatriation.

Repatriation is a euphemism for mass deportation.Just as ."v!exican workers could be shipped around the country in groups, they could also be shipped to Mexico in the same manner (Guerin-Gonzales and Story, 1995). This occurred on a small scale dur- ing short recessions of the 1920s, but the depression of the 1930s initiated large scale repatriation. The 1930 census counted 639,000 Mexican citizens living in the United States; by 1940, that figure was down to 3 77 ,000. The Mexican government estimates 458,000 Mexican citizens returned to Mexico between 1929 and 193 7 (_l\1eier and Ribera, 1993). It is impossible to determine just how many of the returnees left vol- untarily. Although jobs were difficult to find during the depression, signs also began to appear with messages such as "Only \\'hite Labor Employed " and "No ~iggers, Mexicans, or Dogs." Still probably close to 170,000 were repatriated. Los Angeles comny supported the use of this system as follows: 6,000 unemployed Mexicans would cost the county $425 ,000 in welfare but only $77,000 in transportation costs back to Mexico (Cardoso! 1980). The fact that some American citizens were undoubtedly among the repatnated was not a European American concern.

The A1exican American: A New Ethnic Group

In spite of these comings and goings, a stable population of Mexican Americans did begin to develop. Some families did immigrate together and some families were cre- ated in the United States. In 1928, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) was formed in Texas, with the goal of protecting the rights of Mexican Americans. As a means to achieving this, it recommended assimilation co .1'v1exican Americans, with a particular emphasis on learning English. These are clearlv the goals of people who expect ro stay. •

Chinese Americans

Chinese Americans became more Americanized in the first half of the twentieth cen- rury, stemming in part from concurrent political changes in China. The formation of the new Republic of China included encouragement to Chinese all around the world to modernize. Chinese Americans could now cut off their queues and adopt \\lestern hairstyles. Others eliminated ancestor worship, many second-generation Chinese explored che Christian religions of their adopted country. A Chinese boy scout troop was formed in San Francisco in 1914 followed by a Chinese YJvlCA in 1916 . The n.ewly formed Chinese American Citizens Alliance was an educationally oriented orgamzatJ.on that encouraged greater Chinese assimilation to the United States (Tsai, ! 986).

In spite of moderniiation, however, most Chinese still lived in Chinatowns in a narrower range of occupations over time. As mines and railroads either closed or looked elsewhere for labor, more and more Chinese moved into laundry or restaurant

The "Nw Immigrants" and the Old Minorities: 1880-1965 o 207

work. V\lhen the depression of the l 930s occurred, Chinatowns were especially hard hit because of the interlocking nature of the business interests.

Probably the most s.ignincant change in America~ Chinatowns was the slow growth of c:he female population. Even with the difficulties of immigration, women comprised 25 percent of the Chinese population in the United States by 194-0, up from 6.5 percentin 1910 (Tsai, 1986). As «.-ich Chinese men, these women also c:i.me to embrace more Western ideas. Tn addition ro other factors .chat'influenced men, they also had the role model of Madame Chiang Kai-shek-the very well-known wife of China's leader. Her visit to the United States in 1943 during World War II made a major impression on the Chinese American community (Chan, 1991).

World War II also produced an extremely important change in the status of Chi- nese Americans that would come to affect both their lives and future immigration. Al- though the Chinese were still aliens ineligible for citizenship according co the 1870 law, the alliance between China and the United States in opposition to Japan made chis status embarrassing to the United Smes. On December 17, 1943, President Roosevelt signed an ace, commonly called the l'l1agnuson Bill, which allowed natural- ization to Chinese nationals and eliminated th e Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Fol- lowed by the War Bride Act of 1945, many doors, which had previously been ajar at best, opened for Chinese immigrant women.

The Arrival of the Japanese Emigration from Japan became legal in 1885 . Their first destination would be the sugar fields of Hawaii-30,000 Japanese made that journey from 1885 to 1894, com- ing as contract laborers much like the Chinese . Anoth.er 127,000 would come from 1894 to 1907 (Ichioka, 1980). Most of these early immigrants were young rural men from agriculrorai backgrounds whose education Level tended to be lower than the av- erage Japanese (Icbioka, 1980; Spickard, 1996).The average term oh labor contract was three years, during which time the laborer was essentially the property of the planter (Tchioka, 1983}.

Japanese women, most of whom came after 1900, later joined the mei: .in the sugar cane fields (Tamura, 1995). Young, single Japanese women had tradioooally been part of the labor force in Japan, particularly in industrial labor where they com- prised 68 percent of the workforce; thus, labor overseas for single women was not as radical as it might seem (Von Hassell, 1993), and they soon became 20 percent of the emigrants (Spickard, 1996). Many of these women continued to work in ~e ~e fields. Others, especially those who wowid up on the mainland, became prosatur~ m the male-dominated society of Japanese immigrants. J\s is true for most illegal activi- ties we do nor know as muCh about this as we would like. Some of these women used prostitution as a temporary occupation before moving into better cirCUJllstaJlCes; others appear co have been forced into the work against their wills (Spickard, 1996; Warren, 1989).

Beginning in 1890, signifiamt Japanese immigration to the 'C'nited Stares began, with chc rnajori r:y entering through the ports of Seartle and San Francisco. 1n the last

cox •

'!l'.c-:1'.l.c· nt".tlw ~ll 1 1l'tct'.lllh l'.l'lllUJT, ~S,<J42 .l.q1anc<c wo1ild i>l' ,1dmiiicd I<> the Unit('d St.Ill'.,,, 111 ,he h"I ,Jcc,1dc <>I the 1wenncd1 cc:1llur1· ·111(1tli··r I'')-()." J f [ I · . I l s I . . . . . . ' . ' .. ' ' \\()LI I )l' ;]( lllll-

[l( ( ... 1111111~r;H1011 ;111d \i:it11rnl11.;rn"11 Sen ,·c"•• J<J<;· ,.\ ·1··1. · I I , ) . . . . '· .>,. ic1r nun1 >er., were not .l'.Jtrc. mi 1.h,ey ,·o11cc1llr;ll<'.d ;il111rnt c1ni1·d.1• in the three Pacific Coast state., where .11.ll-.\01,111 ·'cllntllcnt "''" ;1J1·c;td\' s1rrn1Q"

, . • 1 lw lir<t it•I>:. :111c·n 10 !he1·;1 rly ) .lf;,111c't' irnmir,;1·;1111• \\ere.: in fonninc; ;\ncl 011 the 1.11li 11.1d~. rn~nr hc,111i: .J<':lli:ihlc hc ti1u,,c "" 1hc n:ccnt shurd<ni·n of' c1 1· : "· · .. 11011 11 ih .. I 1''00 · J I I . · , 1nt.:sc 1mmwr.1- : , · ... . ' ' J r~ • ~ . . :lJ'•lllC~l' . :t >1>r lllOl'ed llHO nthcr forrns ot· '"nb!·c l:ihor inclucJ- ~n~ ''11~ '~.1 ~1~ •1.nrl ~alnlf)ll <'~ 1 . nc r1c~ (:\zuma, 199·+). 1\-lany opened s~1iall businesses ·~l1chl nli;I 1 1\~)~;•ltli .\·1,ms. h:1rh1.: r sh11p~. w:ird1 mnking- ~hops, ;md laundric~ WonH('ich ·rnd " '" ,. • ,,( · ·111111 ~ l 'J <J.l) .\·J · · . I . . ' I" . ', ' . · ' .' • • • 11r~ 1r 11prn C:ll H, C H.>y b (·l!Jll lll ( ll' J11!!' trom form Jn l.Jor ;<~ ,1~ 1_11 opc1:111<m, enl1er tl1rn1.1gh purch.1~1.: or lcn o;mg. The}' l•md~d ro pcci~ l iie in

.1 H>1-1nr~ns1n: produce such :1' bc1Tics or vq!er.ahlc.•, in ll l}' !'.If •l'liidi wc·r, 1 21

·• Id ;itL1rn1cr,;puhlil.111:1rkctsdirl'crlytochc p11 !J l w. ln1h .: l914Sc~nl II,' · ;e~s~ cx.arn 11 1 , J· .. , I" .. .. .. , . . . , - i: pu 11c n a r~ cr. ro r . · <, .1p.1m,c .11111cis 1cntl'd 301lMdw·IUO ~ t nlls(Dm1i c.:I· J<J il } ·1·1 . 11, ts clc·1r-,. ·t i' . I 1. I . . ~. " · le rrcn< h: rc ·. •

1 gc n1i1 " ~1agc :1 1t1r :me into 1·1mmng- rour ow11 bu,;.ines.<. \iot onlv 11,,11

\l<l£!l' nhor JJonrll' 1rnd in,,.• ,., I I· · · )· I· I · · . · ' I,.:. . ... ·. · '

1 . ;."nc1.i · .l\ll :1 '" tl<~. :1p;incse rn111ngra1us rook cm extra cur

.~"c1 ~1 ·1 c of i ,1( !Sill. \ \ hile lt;1Jia11 ,.\111enc:ll! r:1ilrnad \1•01·kers made berwee.n $I AS and $!.(>. .111 lwur Ill ll.l!O,J1p:1nesc \l'llrkcl"; enrncd l1nv,;cc11 Sl.20 and £140 J .'., ("lrf)l'llt 'I" 1J · ·11 I I · · · ap.rnese • c 'rll ic saw1111 ~ mc1( e 1ct1ree11 SI G'i ·11ld '"J tJ(J .1 J· ·I ·r 1 · 1·· • • • • .i).... • L ,1y, \\ 11L':t1crr '.Urf)ptan

,1 :' ', '• •' I <. ' " ' I ,

. ·~ ...

Tix ''Nn'' hmni.~1·1m1s 0

1111d the Old Minmiries: J 8SO-J 965 • 209

American cowor·kers earned between $2, 7 5 ~nd $3.50 (Azuma, 1994), Yet even thoiwh these .new J:ipanese entrcprcn~urs were nm in direct competition with Europe~n American lrnsmessmcn (who did not, tor exmnple, grow strnwherries), their success Dnly increased the prcjuuice and discrimination the}' faced.

Anti-]apanese Attitudes

All i.n all, Eurnpe>m Amcric:ms on the \Vest Coast did not see much worth in their Japanese neighbors. :Vluch of the hatred came from organized labor, which viewed any new cheap lahor as a threat. As nne labor organizer commented in J 900:

Chinatown with its reeking filth and dirt, its gambling dens and obscene slave pens, its coolie lahnr .. , is a menace w the community; but the snivel- ing Japanese, who swarms along the streets and cringingly offers his paltry services for a suit oF clothes ,rnd a front scat in our public schools, is a fur greater tLmger 10 the laboring portinn of society than all the opium-.~oaked pigtails who have ever blotted the fair name of this beautiFLtl city (quoted in Yamato, 1994:3 5).

The school reference <ibove concerned the practice of some older J1panese who wished to ]earn English at the public schools. They were often placed in classes \\.ith younger children. Politician Grover Johnson observed:

Jam responsible to the mothers and fathers of Sacramento County who have d1eir little claughtcrs siu.ing side by side in the school rooms with m~mrcd .hp>, with their hase minds, their lascivious thoughts, multiplied br their nice and strengthened by their mode of life . , , 111,ive seen Japanese twenty- fivc years old sitting in i:hc seals next to the pure maids of California .. I shudder to think of Sllch a condition (<]llOted in Spickard, 1996:29).

You might notice a simiLirity "ith the earlier justifications for lynching African Amc ri c:ms, using die defense CJf women tr.> (:ed 1m:judke.

l f rhc prc"iou& rwo exprcs~ions · of h.mctl do '1 0l seem cue from the same doth, ;hey ;1re not. 1ost ~nti-Jap~ncse fee ling lid not ~t-cm from n clear ccon<l l lic n1nciv:1- 1i(m (M cCl ntchr, I 97R). i\_~ we have seen , bbnr competition frnm l hc Jnpancse bel~1me le,\~ of an i. sue, c> pcci~Uy ~. th e J<i pnncsc mrwcd from w~gc la hor intn bu.smcss and c1w11i11g pr(,lpcrty. These businesses, for the most pan:, thri"cd in inclependen1 eco- 1rnmic niches, much like the Ccrman Jews with their clothing factories.

·1 z,e Em·(v GrrrJ.>th of the Japane.re !lmerium Commtmi~y By 1920, California w<1s becoming the most popular home for theJ:ip<mcse American conummity. In 1900, only 40 percent of all Japancst~ 1\mericans lived in rhat state:, but hr J 'J20, almost 70 percent clid (D~miels, l 988). Although the largest nrban concen- tration was the Japanese community in Los Angeles ("Little Tokro"). Japanese Ame~­ icrns resisted the. urbanizing trends oi the twenricth century, continuing to focus thetr

w N N

I r ·ul· the J 11/M FJ C.f1 in ~ d .•"((;i/ uf Pedri I J, n f. oi: 1-Vi·.·r C,·111:-, }t/'~?n c..-r ­ "Jtn, ·; :"c:ut r 7..' ·' t"i"I f.11·1·t'/1!r e:'1J.'!f1lftd l~·om r/Jl'iJ' ~:ru11cs ii tI 'l .~fl.rJrd'o~ 1·,111.1;t.;. ;,11hr .'11r(nlr:/1~1;: (fJ/lll t l'\

Tin "Ne-., hmnibm111ts" 1md the Old 1'1/im>riries: l 880-.J 96S • 211

field. They achieved grades well above the norm for California srndenrs and attended for more years. In 1940, 58 percent of Kisei men over the age of 25 held high school diplomas compared with 4<5 percent for comparable European American men (Spicbrd, 1996). This gap onlr increased with time. But lssci parents did not totally neglect Japanese cduc:1tion for their children. Japanese language schools were orga- nir,ed for ~isei to attend after their dar at the public school. ln addition, some Nisei were selected to attend school in Japan for a !Cw years, rounding out their educational e~perience. Almcm half of the \Nest Coast Nisei took advantage of this opportunity \Spickard, 1996). Generally, parents encouraged boys more than girls in the educa- tional arena. Tn spite of this, Nisei girls learned to identify 1>.'ith their female teachers and achieved well on their own (Tamura, 1995).

]1m When Things Were Looking Up: Pearl Harbor and the Rclocario11 Ct1mps

The Japanese attack on the United States Naval Fleet at Pearl Harhor, Hawaii, seems to have caught Ci\'ilian Americans as unprepared as the l\'a~y. By 1941, thcJapane.<e American cormnunity on the \Vest Coast had become quite Americanized in both cul- ture and atrirudes, but the people were both unknown to and feared by their Euro- pean American neighbors. Rumors spread rapidly about an impending J:1panese inv;1sion of the \".'est Coast in wltich Japanese Americans would aid the invaders. Pub- lic opinion moved quickly m strongly support the remov;il of all Japanese Americans from coastal areas. Ironically, more Japanese Americans were then li\ing on the Hawaiian Islands than on the West Coast, hut no such rumors spread there; theJapa11- ese American community in Hawaii was much more integrated with other ethnic groups and, as a result, was nor feared.

President Franklin Roosevdt responded quickly to this pressure from the V/est, signing Executive Order 906(1 on February 19, 1942. 'With the stroke of one man's pen- this was nor a law pas:s~d by Gnngrcss--a!l Americans of j apanesc ancestry were 1hcrcby Qrdered removed to inland prison <.limps (Daniels, 1975). This order resulted u lumarely in he roundiag up of 120,3 13 peop le, two- thirds of whom were American (' JOI.ens, and heir being i nc~rcer.ircd without due process or law. The United States u ~~remc C:ourr soon declared this ibgrancly unconstituti onal order ro indeed he con-

,titution:il. W~t Co.1st !ssei and Nisei were given noricc in early 1942 di.-it they were to prepare to bt evacuated, hringing wirh them only what thei• <:c>uld carry (Daniels, 1988: Nak:mi.1hi, 1993).

In must cases having only :i matter uf days, Japanese Americans faced man)' ~o­ no mic and logisti c prohlem~. \Vhat could be dr>ne with furms or husine scs? Luck)' in- divi t! uals found European Americm1s willi ng ro look after things . ..Vfary 'ISuk:imotO dcsc: ihcs her familr's gone! fortune in hnving a European American neighbor not only willing rri keep up their f:H"m but also m pay raxcs on ir for t hem wh ile tbC}' were nb- ~em ( lsukm11orn :11 d Pinkr.:rron, 19 8). Less forrun:nc individual' attempted to lease h omes or husincssi1s; man :· returned ro fi1ul rhcm poorly tr1,>:ited or looted. Person.al po.,~ es,ions wen; ufa~n sold in ~-:ird sal · 3l 1 hich European Americans rejoiced m li 11 ding such gc:mJ lmg;ims (Tio~ 6.2). Tn short, relocation placed an incrcc.lible eco- nom ic bardshi1> on the J~pa11c;;e Amer ican cummuniry (Spickard, 1996).

~IL • .Part rwo Tin Cast of Charartcr.<: Enmma.< and Exits

This crn.,ct fT01n l?nul Spick:ml 's work (19?6:! 04) givc:s us some idc~ of the anger and frustration mlny Japanese Americans m1m ha ,•c e.''jlcdcncerl ~ l the i nju~tice of rheir fo rced incarceration during World w~r 11 .

The secondhand clcQ(trs had been prowl- ing around for weeks, li ke wol\'CS, offering humih2tmg prices for good.s and furmrurc they lmew many of us would have ro sel l sooner or Inter. ,\1 ama hai l , . • one finr old ct of china. blue nnd vrhite porcel~n , almost r:ranslucenr ....

One of the dealers offered her fifteen dol- lars for Ir. She .~aid It was ~ full •ct ing for 1wcl,•e and worth u1 lcaH two hundrotl . He ~id fili,ccn w•s his top price. Marna slllned ltl qui\'cr .... She didn't say anoc:he r 11·ord . She j u~ gkircd ~! this man. Jll the rage ancl frus- tnciun channeled at him through her c~e..~.

He watched Iler fM a moment aod said he wos sure he 1,:ouldn't pay more than stvcn~en fifty for t.lm chinJ. She reached into the ml velvet case, wok out a dinner plate and hu rled it at the floor right in fTont of lus ftct.

The man leaped hack shouting, "Hey! Hey, don 't do that! Those are valuable Jishes!"

Ma1011 1ook out another clinncr plate nnd hurled 1r at the floor. Then •nether and a.n- other, never moving, ne'"cr opening her mourh, jusr qu ivering an d glaring at the re - m:acing dealer, wi!h tcal"5 streaming down her check~. He finalh· rumed and scutded out the door. he~dinu f~r the next house. When he was gone she- sroocJ there smashing C11ps and l>owls ancl platters umil the whole set lay in scattered blue and white fragments across the wooden floor.

Meanwhile, the \.'lar Relocation Authority (\.\/RA) was crcaterl to form and run the re location c;i mps. As d1e camps filled, the t:nited Sta es government began to consider the possibility of ~n all-Japanese American unit in the army. Because the United Stares militnry was still racially segrcgared in \.Vorld 'War II. th.is unit would consist of only Japanese American troops led by European American office rs. On Feb· ruary I, 1943, Secretary of\.Var Sti01son announced the formation of the 442nd Reg- imental Combat Team. The Selective Sen.ice Sysrem origi nally had classified the 1'\isei as 4-C (th<! same srsrus as enemy aliens), bur their classificnrion was changed ro 1-A , making them availab le for the draft. Jlawaiinn Japanese Americans comprised the major ity of this new unit, buc )./isei in che camps willing co .<; ign lo)'al ty o 3chs al~o were eligible. They were tn1ined and sent to Europe to fight while their fami lies remained in the relocation camps.

The 442nd would ultimately see 18 000 i\isei men in it<; service, most of them volw1tecrs. By the end of the war, they had re-ceive<l 9.486 C11sualries and been aw:irded 18, 143 individual decoracions, inc uding one Congr~ssional Medal of Honor (29 total were awarded during \.Vorlcl War Il), 4i Distinguished Ser"ice Crosses, 350 Sil"cr • rars and 3,600 purple hearts. Thei• became the mo t decorated urut m American military history (Daniels, 1988; Menton, I 994). One <lf these soldiers, Daniel Inouye of Hawai i (who later heCJme o United Srates senator), first returned to the l.'nited Sta res via ship to the port of San Franci~co. He ha<l lost an arm in Italy. \'\!earing his uniform l\ith its one empty $lccve and ce>vered with medals, he was unable Lo find a barber willing to cut his hai r.

Tbt "New Immigrants" and rbe Old Minoritier: 1880-1965 • 213

. d was fi htin in Europe, the \VR.-\ was slowly trying to empty \Vhile the 442 n . g hg could find work (again, awav from the coast) were

h J anese i\mencans w o · t e camps. ap Aft. " 7 ld \V II most returned to the Vilest Coast and attempted . llowed to leave. er vvor ar ' . . ful Effi a . . re the, had left off. They once again became qmte success . 0175 to pick_up v.he ) fa olo , from the federal government began. In 1976, Pres1- to obtam some forl11 °. dp d Eg)

0 . . Order 9066 On August 10, 1988, President

d G ld Ford rescm e xecu ve . ent era . d the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided for a payment Ronald Reagan s1gne . American who had spent time behind barbed of $20,000 to each survivmg Jfiapanll~se 'l din October of 1990, 60,000 such people wire. When the checks were na y. mai e were still alive (Nakanishi, 1993; Spickard, 1996).

*'''*'';

7 New Immigrants and Old Minorities:

32

The Contemporary Playing Field

The beginning of the cwenrieth cenrury is often thought of as the grea t age of immi- gration in the United States. By 19 l 0, 14. 7 percent of the entire U.S. population was foreign-born-the highest ic had been since colonial days (U.S. Bureau of the Census, J 997b). The National O rigins Act of 1924 put an effective stop to this inBILx, placing immigration quocas on every country. This law would remain in force for forty years, dropping the percentage of foreign-born in the Unired States by two-thirds berwcen 1910 ~nd 1970.

This chapter focuses on the newest Americans-those imrnigranis who arrived because of immigration law changes in t:be 1960s. The doors to America opened halfway, beginning a. second great age of immigration. Unlike the wave from a cen- t\11}' ago, which Rowed largely from Europe, this new wave originated in Latin Amer- ica and Asia (see Alba, 1999). The United States would once again face large numbers o f people searching for ways co adapt while altering the ethnic landscape of the pop- ulation . Not surprisingly, these changes also brought about the same anti-immigrant attitudes so prevalent in the early y~rs of the twe ntieth century (Henry, 1999). Our currenr story of immigration is sci.ii in the process of un folding.

2.14 • Pan '1\vo The Cnst of"Chfirncrcrs: C.1trnncrJ 1111d f':xm

The 1965 Immigration Act

In spire of what ap~ears to be a forr}- year period of Lhe status quo, imrnigrarion law did undergo some mterestmg changes via minor alterations between 1924 and 1965 Some .alLeratium occurred largely for political reason -granting rights of citizenshi; to Chinese 11nm1grants during \Vorld \-Var TT, for example-bur other changes were more s1grnficant overall. Immigration has always been linkecl with labor f~rce de- mands. Immigration law changes in the 1940s and 1950s dearh• showed that a closed- door policy did not allow fine run in~ of the iabor force during times of shorrage.

. The bracero pr~gram began quietly 1n 1942, recehing lirtle notice because the Urnted States had iusr.encercd a war tha r was i::hen going badlr. vVhilc the armer! forc~s were m the :~b~1ldmg process, indll!;trial producri nn W AS going full swing and labor was neede<l. L hrs labor shortage hrought rnral m inori t ies and women into the labor force, but ~till more l~hor was needed , parricularly in agriculture. The brnm·a program was des1g.ned to hr1ng :11cxican cm~cn 1mo rh e l nired Sra tc.~ o n a tcmpo- rnry baSIS to work m agncul ru rc . The program would re mam operative until 1964. _ .A more glohal. policy chd nge in unmigra tion law occurrccl with the passage of the

l\anonahtyAt:t ol 1952 ([he McCarrnn-\Va lccr Acr). Th ls law left 1hc quorn system from l 924 intact but with three additions th2r would appear a decade late r in much stronger lorm. First, rhc J\:ationality ct linked immigration preference with skills tlmr were "urgently J1Ceded " in me lJnitcci State,~. Imm igrnn rs withs ·ills alread)' in ~llace could leapfrog. over other. applicants from their counny. ccond. it form2l iz.cd prefer- ences '.~r 111.11rugrant relatives ~~y.s . ci tiiens. Th ird , rncial groups previously si ngled out as mchg1ble for c1t1zensh1p were pennitte<l to become naturalized citizens.

Basic Changes iTJ the Law

The Immi~rarion and ~ationality Act of 1965 was rhe most significant immigration !aw since I )24; no 1mm1grnuon law passed since has come close to its imporrance, fhc cornerstones of the 1965 law were family reunification and an end to the racially

and cthrncall~ biased quota system. The law took shape with the addition of suhse- quem leg1sfat1on, creating the following immigration preference system:

I. Restricted imm igration would be limited to 270,000 individuals ann uall r w1th no more than 20,000 individuals entering from any one country. Of that rotal, 80 percent would be limited to close relati\•es of ciciuns or resi den t' o f the United States, and 20 percent would be allocated on the hasis of needed skills possessed by aspir ing immigrants.

2. l:nrest~ctcd immi~rnrion would he granted lo individuals in rhe following c;1tegones; !a) spouses, parents , and lllinor children of adult C.S. citilens and (b) refugees ;rnd asylee s.

. Litercstingly, mosL govemmenrnl officials at the time had little idea of the impact lf11s law ~· mild h~ve on rhe United State>, either in the overall si7e of immigration or 1rs d11'crs1ty. \v11rn Atrorney General Rnherr Kennedy was asked how rhis law wmild

Z5

10

0

New Immigrants a11d Old Minorities: The Contemporary Playing Field • 235

affecl Asian inunigration, he .repli ed, " it would he approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from thar source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants could come in the first year, bur ~·c do not e.~pecr that there would be any grear infiwc after that~ (quoted in Borjas, 1990:32). Kennedy was not3lonc. ?.'lost govemmenral of- ficials believed that demand for immigration ro rhe United States was relati\•ely low.

The demand, howe•·er, was huge, pa rticul arly from Asians and Latin Americans. In addition, Congress did not seem to haYe a !inn grasp on the natu re of family structure-the more relatives that entered the United States, the more still other rel- atives became eligible. In most years, more immigrants ente red under this unre- stricted status than wlde r restricted sranis. (Over time, rhe occupationa l preferences category decreased and was fil led with increasing numbers of family .relations in an ef- fort ro minim ize total immigration numbers.) Congress thought it was half opening a door to a few newcomers . ln f:icr, it ,1;-as opening that doo·r almost completely t0 a crowd of avid immigrants. Figure 7. I shows the change in rhe percentage of foreign- bom in the Uruted States duoughour the twentieth century. It also shows us the ab- solute change in· the numbers of foreign-born in the United States. The impact of the ! 965 law cannot be clearer.

w;•a••;IWM FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION ANO PERCENT OF' U . S. POPULAT I ON , 1850-1997 .

• Percent foreign born

111 Foreign born population (in millions)

1850 18i0 1890 1910 1930 Year

1950 1970

U.S. Burc<1.u o f t he Census, i999c.

n6 • Part Two The Ca.rt ofCharac;ei:r: Emmnrr.< and Exits

Refugees and Asylm

Rcfogccs ~nd a~yl ces comprise a fair ly large proportion of unrestricted immigration. TI1c: United Stares has long admirted rc:fugees and permitted asylwn but only forcer- tain kinds of refugees. Before 1980, refugees and asylees gained their status as immi- grams only tf rhcy were Aeeing 11 Communist country or a Communist-dominated area. lmmigrJt ion policy w.l essentially an extension of foreign policy. The federal gO\·cmrncn often denied this starus to individuals from non-Communist countries on the grounds that they sought to immigrate for economic reasons and were using fear of political oppression in the home country as an excuse. Because most countries with high levels of governmental oppression also offer fewer economic opporrunitics than the United States, prospective immigrants found ouch charge.o; hard co refme.

The Refugee Act of 1980 redefined a refugee as an indhidu.il li~ing out;idc his or her country of na ti onality because of fe:ar of persecution on their rerurn as a rcsulr of t:heir race, religion. naunnality, mernhcrship in a parLicuhir social group, or political opinion. The new law also attempted to place a cap on the total number of immigrants to be admitted under chi~ o;rnrus. This cap changes regularly, however, in response to changing world conditions. To cfate. most immigrants to the United Scates w1der this starus have emigr;ited from Cuba and \iiemam. Unlike other immigrants, refugees and asylces receive fedentl govcrnmenral a.ssistance, from finding housing and employment 10 rece iving Medicaid. Between 19 l and 1987 , approximately $600 million per year was spent on aid to refugees, amounting to about $7,000 per immigrant (Borjas, 1990).

The New Foreign-Born

T.iblc 7. 1 provides :m u,·crall \' iew of the sources of recent immigration to the ni Led States. One country alone-Mexico-is che birth country o ( over one fourth of all foreign-born. Ocher • pani~h speaking countries from Latin America add another 24 percent. From across t.he Pacific, the many countries of Asia make up ove r 26 percenc of all foreig11-born. The .Philippines regu larly sends the most immigr:mrs. but as Ta hie 7.1 shows, Asi~n irnmigrntion is rc lath·ely spread out. The n11mhcr from Europe may seem surprisingly l3rgc, but the impact on the United Srntes has been more in num- bers than in cnlruraI diversity. fm rnigration was quire high berween 1950 and l9i0 from both the Unite1! Kingdom and German)'. Beyond tha t , there has been a steadr stream of immigr:in s from \'.irm~lly all European countrit:.!> . The rebdvely smaller numbers from each cou ntry serve to lesstn chc impun:ed culrurnl cliversiry. The great- est impact for the: United tares, hoch in number · and in diversity, has come from Latinos and :\.~ian .

These new imm1grams senle in VCI}' deii1111e g<=O[:.'Tilphic pa11erns . .Some . en.le m ccnain art:as bilSed on earlier immigration co that area by chcir e 111c group .• uch ar- eas are t}=pically urb-.m but increasing numbers of new iuunigranrs are scrtling in subur- ban ureas (,\Iba et al., 1999). Others seek lnc.'lri<.ms thac arc genera lly c!>.-panrli ng economically and pru,idc more opporruniocs. 111is combination hns made C,1lifomia the most popular destination for both Latinq and Asian immigrams. Fully million foreign-born (j,,e in thut st:ite, makmg up 25 percent of its population. >Je,• York

New Jmmigra>1ts and Old Mi1101ir.ies: The Contemporary Playing Field • 237

REGIONS AND TOP THIRTEEN COUNTRIES OF BIRTH

OF THE FOREIGN BORN, 1997

Countr}' of Birth Number (in thousands) Percent

All Countries 25,800 100.0

13,235 51.3 Latin America

i,Oli 27.2 Mexico

913 3.5 Cuba

Dominican Republic 632 2.4

607 2.4 F.I Salvador

6.914 26.8 Asia

4.4 Philippines

1,132

1,107 4.3 China

770 3.0 Vietnam

2.9 748 India

2.3 ;91 Korea

16.9 4,360 [urope

2.9 SO\~et Union

734 2.3

United Kingdom 606

2.2 C':rerroany

578 2.2

North America 568

2.1 Canada

542 2 .9

Other 748

U.S. Uure.:iu of the Censu.s, 1999c

f .' I tion Between them, Call- contains 3.6 million foreign-born-19.6 percent o 1.ts p~pu a . ch United $tllteS (U.S. fomia and New York contain almost half of the foreign- Hom '~ .. e 18 percent for- Bureau of the Census, ! 999c). Beyond these two states, awl!l~ ts over he im acr eign-bom, followed by Florida (16.4 percent) and New jerse~· ( I , .4f~rc~~~~ St:1~. of t:he new immigration is clearly focused 111 a few select regions o e