This post is part of my Immigration Series. Please read the
introduction, particularly the disclaimer.
***
One of the greatest challenges in discussing immigration
with many people, particularly those on the Right determined to restrict
immigration as much as possible (at least from certain countries) is that they
are often grossly ignorant of history. The most common - and laughable - claim
is this:
My ancestors immigrated legally, and so should everyone
else.
For the vast majority of people saying this, the statement
is utterly meaningless. It’s kind of like saying “I was born.” Of course you
were. And of course the ancestors of most white people in the United States
came here “legally.” Because for most of them, there was no such thing as “illegal” immigration.
Let’s look at this chronologically. I am only looking at the
period of time beginning with the ratification of the United States
Constitution, which is the founding document of our nation. Before that,
immigration was a haphazard, largely unregulated affair. There was no United States
to be a citizen of, so that part was kind of irrelevant.
I also am going to address two separate but related issues:
Immigration and Naturalization. Immigration is coming here - and “legal”
immigration means the ability to come here and work and live without fear of
deportation. Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen, and includes
the right to vote (if you were male) and otherwise participate in the political
process.
To the extent possible, I have cited to primary sources as
recorded by reputable government or academic sources. All of these are publicly available.
A. The US
Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution
grants Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
This has been subsequently interpreted to give Congress the power to regulate
immigration on a uniform, national basis.
B. Immigration laws before 1882 [crickets…]
Not many people are aware (in my experience), that until
1882, there were NO restrictions on immigration itself. No federal laws
governing immigration, for that matter.
All you had to do to legally immigrate the the United States prior to 1882 is step off the
boat, or walk here from Canada
or Mexico.
That’s it. Get your butt here somehow, and you could work, live, and raise a
family without fear of deportation. If you were here, you were here. You had
immigrated. Congratulations.
Now, in practice, there were some, um, differences,
depending on who you were. If you were, say, African American, if you got off a
boat to here prior to 1865, you likely did so in chains as a slave. So, not so
good. Yeah, that is an embarrassing part of our history, and one that the Roy Moores of the world would
like you to remember differently.
But there were NO restrictions on immigration. None. So keep
that in mind when you claim your family immigrated legally. Of course you did.
You couldn’t have “illegally” immigrated if you tried!
C. Naturalization statutes
Ah, here is where the laws were. From nearly the beginning,
Congress regulated the process of Naturalization - that is, becoming a citizen.
How many of you can tell me how you did that?
Yep, this was enacted right after Congress met for the first
time ever. The link above has the text, if you are interested. Guess what the
requirements for becoming a US
Citizen were?
One, live here for 2 years. (And remember, you could come
here without restriction…)
Two, prove you were of good moral character. (Basically, no
serious criminal issues - the same thing we lawyers have to prove to get our
license. So you could become a citizen if you were no slimier than a lawyer…)
Three, promise to be loyal to the United States.
That’s it. Apply to a court, and get your citizenship papers
- and your minor (under 21) children, born here or not, would become citizens
too.
Well, five years later, Congress realized it had made a big
mistake with the previous law. It wasn’t racist enough!
So, the new law had some changes:
First, you had to live here for five years first.
Second, you had file an oath that you intended to stay here
three years before you applied.
Third, you had to renounce loyalty to other countries.
Fourth, you had to prove moral character.
Fifth, if you were a nobleman in another country, you had to
renounce your hereditary title.
Sixth: You had to be white.
There were a few minor changes regarding children. If a
citizen had a child while overseas, that child would be a citizen. (Both of my
parents are citizens under the new version of this rule - they were both born
overseas to US Citizens - missionary kids.)
Ah, this one is interesting. It was part of the highly
controversial “Alien and Sedition Acts,”
enacted during the John Adams administration to enable some pretty scary
persecution against suspected foreign agents - and the French (this time - previously the Brits were the bogeymen...) in general. Although
the acts never went to court (this was prior to Marbury v. Madison,
which established the right of the US Supreme Court to rule laws
unconstitutional), numerous court opinions since have (in dicta - language not
pertinent to the case at hand) pretty clearly stated that they would be ruled
unconstitutional had they been challenged. In fact, for lawyers, these acts are
kind of the “ground zero” for clearly unconstitutional legislation - we studied
them in law school.
Okay, so more changes. The residency time was extended to 14
years, and the notice time to 5 years. The “whites only” restriction continued.
Immigrants were required to register when they got there, and, if from a
disfavored “foreign power,” post a bond that they wouldn’t get into trouble.
And then, Thomas Jefferson was elected, and the
controversial Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed. And replaced, in the case
of Naturalization, with this one.
For the most part, things went back to how they were under
the 1795 act. Five years residency, three years notice of intent to become a
citizen, moral character, renounce titles, swear allegiance to the US.
Clarification as to which court to apply to in territories. A few minor tweaks
on children, but largely the same idea.
5. The Fourteenth Amendment
In the aftermath of the Civil War, three Amendments to the
Constitution were ratified. The 13th abolished slavery. The 15th granted voting
rights to all (male) persons.
The 14th made a major change and clarification to
Naturalization law. Essentially, if you were born here, you were a citizen, even
if you weren’t white.
Okay, so there was still a problem if you were Native
American. They were excluded, despite being the most “American” of all of us…
The key thing here is that the 14th Amendment established
“Birthright Citizenship.” If you are born here, you have the right to become a
citizen. (Yes, limited diplomatic exceptions, but the courts have generally
held that if your parents intend to come here, you are a citizen. Needless to
say, this sticks in the craw of Nativists everywhere, who whine about “anchor
babies” of the so-called “inferior” races.)
There are other interesting clauses in the amendment, which
are beyond the subject of this post, although they are of great interest both
to lawyers - and should be to you, as the 14th, more than any other amendment,
affects all of us and our rights to due process, equal protection, and justice
in this nation.
This act was enacted in the wake of the 14th Amendment, but
also, sadly, served as a turning point in the discussion of Immigration and
Naturalization. Well, sort of. Because it was “Whites Only” for quite a while
on the Naturalization front.
Anyway, this act did indeed follow the spirit of the 14th
Amendment in opening Naturalization to blacks not born in the United States
(the 14th Amendment itself established birthright citizenship, so all the
statute did was to codify that part.)
However, in an ominous development, the Act prevented Asians
from becoming naturalized citizens. They could (for the time being) come here
legally, but they couldn’t gain citizenship. Keep this in mind as we move to
the next section, because it will set the stage for the next 148 years of
immigration debate.
***
So, summary. For the first nearly 100 years of the United States’
existence, you could immigrate largely without restriction. And, at least if
you were white, you could become a citizen simply by coming here (by boat,
land, or teleportation... ), keeping your nose clean for 5 years, and
renouncing loyalty to foreign powers and swearing loyalty to the US (something
still part of the Naturalization process, BTW). That’s it. No English speaking
requirements. No employer sponsorship. No waiting list.
So, if your white ancestors came to the United States
before 1882, there was no way they could have immigrated illegally.
In general, you could immigrate to the United States
simply by coming here. If you were WHITE, you could become a citizen after 5
years of good behavior.
***
In the next installment, I will look at the subsequent
history of Immigration and Naturalization laws after the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882.
One of the scariest quotes I saw from the Roy Moore campaign/fiasco was his idea that getting rid of the post-Bill of Rights amendments would solve a lot of problems. Seeing as most of my work with homeschoolers is based on the 14th Amendment and its subsequent jurisprudence, I thought that was a horrible idea. And that's just one of the 17 he wanted to get rid of (although I'd argue it's probably the most important non-Bill of Rights one).
ReplyDeleteI agree. Although the 13th and 15th are arguably as important - if you are a non-white. We don't deal with them as much now, but I have no doubt the Roy Moores of the world would love to limit voting to white people - and he sure seemed fond of slavery.
DeleteDon't forget either that 80% of white Evangelicals STILL voted for Moore. I'm beginning to think that Evangelicalism is an existential threat to racial equality in America.
"I'm beginning to think that Evangelicalism is an existential threat to racial equality in America."
DeleteSadly,I fear you're right.
This is great information! I very much look forward to your next installment.
ReplyDeleteGreat series, but one minor quibble. (I am a history professor after all.) The Alien & Sedition Acts we’re targeting French immigrants (not Brits). Adams and the Frederalists were pro-British. The US and France were fighting the Quasi War at sea. Jefferson was pro-French and Adams’ enemy. Many French revolutionaries left France as a result of the Terror. A few of them were newspapermen who attacked the authoritarian tendencies of the Federalists. Their 5 year naturalization period was ending and the Federalists were afraid that they would vote (and run for office) as Democratic-Republicans.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work!
Phyllis
You are right. I saw the reference to foreign soldiers that stayed in the various Naturalization laws throughout the whole period, and missed that the French were targeted by the acts as a whole. I'll edit and clarify that one. Thanks!
DeleteThank you for this excellent piece. I’m wondering if you could offer some views on the experience of those who arrived at Ellis Island, as this is often referred to by many claiming their family arrived legally. Had those showing up at Ellis Island gone through any more “application process” than those families we separate at our southern border? Did they have invitations or did they just show up with the desire to become citizens, no different than those arriving from Mexico today?
ReplyDelete