A Nation of Immigrants—But Hardly a Pro-Immigration Nation

January 14, 2023

“The two major parties polarized and homogenized on immigration: the GOP fervently embraced nativism and anti-newcomer politics, its immigration advocates effectively silenced," they continue. One thing to keep in mind is that this notion of a nation of immigrants is not a formal or official kind of designation. And even these supporters of immigration said, essentially, “Sure, we’ll take immigrants, but only certain kinds of immigrants. There would have been no United States—no what historians once called the “peopling of the nation,” and of the continent—without immigrants. I think, obviously, the Trump administration and the degree of demonizing immigrants that came out of it was really unprecedented.

“The two major parties polarized and homogenized on immigration: the GOP fervently embraced nativism and anti-newcomer politics, its immigration advocates effectively silenced," they continue. "The Democratic Party contained more diversity on immigration admissions and border policy, but it stood in favor of immigrant rights and strongly against the demonization of authorized and unauthorized newcomers.”

In other words, Diner says, “What’s happened over the past 20 years is that immigration now mirrors our red and blue camps, creating unbridgeable sides to a chasm.”

To better understand what brought us to this point, NYU News talked with Diner about the forces that have driven immigration over the years, what earlier periods of nativist sentiment can illuminate about our own, and about immigrants’ role in the nation’s “common good.”

The United States is known as a “nation of immigrants.” How do you square that moniker with the historic record of of anti-immigration laws enacted here—such as theAlien and Sedition Acts in 1798, the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, and the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952—that you explore in the book?

One thing to keep in mind is that this notion of a nation of immigrants is not a formal or official kind of designation. And it’s something that some segments of the American public developed as a kind of progressive-oriented embrace, or moniker, as you call it—a way of thinking about themselves and about the larger society. But they develop that idea in relation to or in contradiction of the constant, simultaneous statements and actions of those who said “no” to more immigration.

And even these supporters of immigration said, essentially, “Sure, we’ll take immigrants, but only certain kinds of immigrants. And yes, immigrants are fine if they meet certain criteria that we get to establish.”

This was always set against the fact that, for much of the nation’s history, the nation absolutely, desperately needed immigrants. There would have been no United States—no what historians once called the “peopling of the nation,” and of the continent—without immigrants. And these would include, of course, those from the British Isles, who in the 17th century said they wanted to go to Jamestown or Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay. They were immigrants, too.

You write about how climate change around the globe has prompted migration this century. Does this represent a new force influencing immigration to the U.S.?

Not at all. One of the great causes of migrations over time are localized famines. The Irish potato famine in the mid-19th century has to be the biggest one of them all. There was a major fungal infection of the grape crop in Italy in the 1870s and 1880s, which is when the first waves of immigrants from northern Italy came to the United States.

There was a famine in the eastern part of the German empire and into the western part of the Russian empire, Lithuania, in the 1860s. And you suddenly see people coming from the eastern part of the German empire and the western part of the Russian empire in response to what was one disastrous harvest after another.

So these natural disasters were always at play.

But I think the level of the threat to the environment today is something that we never saw before. And it’s global.

The book covers hundreds of years of immigration history—beginning, as you noted, with the “Founding Immigrants” in the 17th and, later, 18th centuries. What’s different about today’s immigrants compared with those who preceded them?

The major difference between immigrants in the past, whenever that past was, and today is the solidity of the legal system which is in place to weed out those who are seen as “unwanted.” So it’s the laws that are different rather than the people, even though people are coming from different places now than they did in the 1950s and from different places then than came in the 1920s or the 1880s or the 1760s.

But while the geographic scope always changed, for the most part, we’re talking about the same kinds of people. Young. In a way, risk-takers. People who feel they cannot stay put because the places where they live offer them either no opportunity or tremendous and dangerous challenges.

And they came in family units. They came in distinct cohort communities—people from a particular region tended to come at the same time and develop networks.

Otherwise it’s the legal system that makes them different. In 1800, there were people who the country didn’t want. But there was so much chance for somebody to come in unnoticed, uncounted, and undocumented, and then head off to the Appalachian Mountains and nobody would know where they were. Today, the level of surveillance and the size of the bureaucracy, along with the intricacy of the laws, is something that never existed before.

Does your research show that these governmental changes—in our laws and law enforcement—have been brought about by necessity? Or is there something else that’s driving this?

Whatever attempts there were historically to regulate immigration were always political. The relationship between Americans and immigration never strayed far from politics. But what we have now, I’d say, are two things. First, the technology is so different and so much more powerful. And secondly, while in the past it was always connected to politics, the level of that politics was so less harsh. I think, obviously, the Trump administration and the degree of demonizing immigrants that came out of it was really unprecedented.

If today’s views on immigration are largely party specific, does that dampen our hopes for addressing the current circumstances through governmental action?

I think what it’s going to take is a transformation of the parties as we know them, and a kind of return to what I think of as sanity—acknowledging that all of these issues are complicated.

However, if history is any precedent, the periods with the most immigrants have tended to be the periods of the greatest economic productivity. Immigrants are dynamos of job creation, both because they do the work that Americans don’t want to do and because they also become the engines of the creation of small business. And each one of those small businesses generates jobs and generates income. Overall, the fact is that any immigrant who comes in essentially is paying taxes every time they go to the grocery store to buy a quart of milk or a pack of chewing gum. There’s no point in time where immigrants are, or were, a drain on the economy, because they are adding to the common good.

The source of this news is from New York University

Popular in Research

1

2 days ago

Paper-thin solar cell can turn any surface into a power source

2

Jan 13, 2023

Study Reveals the Intrinsic Immune Mechanism that Boosts Axon Regeneration in the Adult Nervous System

3

Jan 14, 2023

ASCERTAIN: New Horizon Europe research project to improve the affordability and sustainability of innovative health technologies

4

Jan 21, 2023

Financy and UniSA partnership delivers tech platform to take diversity, equity and inclusion measurement to the next level

5

Jan 25, 2023

A healthy wind

Biden says ‘no’ to US sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine

7 hours ago

NYU Production Lab Announces Three New Slate Film Projects

1 day ago

Tesla stock suffers worst week since 2020 as Elon Musk sells, large shareholder asks for new CEO

5 hours ago

In Debt Limit Fight, Republicans Won’t Say What Spending Cuts They Want

7 hours ago

Reframing the first-generation academic experience

1 day ago

UNSW community recognised with Australia Day honours

1 day ago