Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 24, 2018)
January 24, 2018 Page 13 Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com. O PINION Racist Past of Immigration Policy Retooled What sort of country do we want? J ose -a ntonio o rosCo The condemnation of Trump’s re- marks on immigration has been swift and widespread. Most of the denunciations cast his ideas as seriously out of line with American ideals on immigration. The problem is that they aren’t really. From the very begin- ning of our nation, there has been a white nationalist core driving our immigration priorities. Even as we struggled to be a “nation of immigrants,” most of the peo- ple we allowed in were chosen on the ba- sis of national origin from the “whitest” parts of Europe. The first US naturalization law of 1790 required that anyone who wanted to become a citizen had to be a “free white person.” At its start, the Framers envisioned the US as a political society for members of a specific racial caste. This requirement stayed in place until the mid-20th century. In 1924, the US passed the Johnson Reed Act, one of the most significant by comprehensive immigration reform bills in our history. It limited the number of immigrants each year and those allowed were selected on the basis of their coun- try of origin. Immigrants from North and Western Europe (such as Norway) had almost no restrictions on en- tering, while Southern and Eastern European immigrants were severely controlled. Immigration from Asia had been almost completely prohib- ited for several decades by this point. The shocking issue with the act is its little known origin story. The law was the brainchild of a notorious white supremacist named Madison Grant. In 1916, Grant wrote a book, The Passing of the Great Race, which argued that the truly white people in the US, the Nordics, were at risk of going extinct because of the massive influx of Poles, Italians, Greeks, and Jews who Grant did not consider white. Grant’s book became a bestseller and reading groups were formed among members of Congress. Grant chaired the committee to advise Congress on immi- gration. The result was Johnson Reed. Grant went on to inspire the Racial In- tegrity Act for the state of Virginia that prohibited interracial marriage. It was widely copied throughout the US. So for almost 40 years of the 20th centu- ry, US immigration policy and marriage law was specifically designed to create a white majority population. Congress didn’t remove this system until 1965, replacing it with one that shifted the demographic makeup of most immigrants. Since 1965, the large bulk of immigrants have been from Asia and Latin America. The new policies today favor creating a diverse pool of immi- grants rather than one based on national origins, and they encourage immigrants, once here, to bring their family members from their former home countries in a process called “chain migration.” Trump’s remarks, and the policy pro- posals on immigration that he has re- leased in the past year, indicate that he wishes to return US immigration policy to the way it was under Grant. Clearly, his preference for individuals from Scan- dinavia versus Africa or Latin America would have pleased Grant immensely. Trump’s advisors have also proposed to reduce the total number of immi- grants that can enter each year and those allowed would be selected by a merit system. Those immigrants demonstrat- ing English proficiency and the right job skills would have a preference. This ob- viously will favor immigrants from those countries with the educational systems that can give people experience with the American way of life. Such a system will drastically limit immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa by eliminating chain migration. About a century ago, Americans strug- gled to find a language to describe what a multicultural, racially diverse, and demo- cratic society would look like. One group of progressive thinkers, led by figures such as John Dewey, Alain Locke, and Jane Add- ams, urged us to imagine a nation where immigrants were not forced to assimilate to a single mold, but encouraged to keep their traditions and enlarge the possibilities of what it means to be an American. This theme is missing from public discussions on immigration today. But if we are look- ing to the past for hints today about what to do with our immigration policy that do not involve reinventing a white nationalist vision, then perhaps this is a conversation we need to remember. José-Antonio Orosco, Ph.D, writes for PeaceVoice and is an associate professor of philosophy and director of the Peace Studies Program at Oregon State Uni- versity. Empower Black Women Running for Office Give them the consideration they deserve J essiCah p ierre Oprah Winfrey’s re- markable Golden Globes speech rocked not only the event’s A-list attend- ees, but almost all of America. Winfrey cited the under-told story of Recy Taylor, a young black woman who was raped by six armed white men during the Jim Crow era. Despite threats to her life, Taylor reported her story to the NAACP — where Rosa Parks made it her mission to help her find justice. That justice was never seen, but Oprah ended her speech on an optimistic note. “A new day is on the horizon,” she said. “A lot of magnificent women” and “some pretty phenomenal men” are “fighting hard to make sure that … nobody ever has to say ‘Me too’ again.” In typical modern fashion, #Oprah2020 began trending on Twitter. I’m a huge fan of Oprah. But I dis- agree with the masses who want her to run for president. Not because she’s a political amateur, by but because America has a history of looking to black women to save Amer- icans from themselves — while not pro- viding the proper recognition for their labor or even respect. John Dean, a White House counsel under Obama, tweeted an endorse- ment that sums this up: “She could end Trump’s, and the GOP’s, misogyny and racism like no one else!” he pre- dicted, tagging his post #Oprah2020. But why should the burden of clean- ing up Trump’s mess fall on a single black woman? America has always trusted black women to do the work, but it’s always come at the expense of their well-being. This notion goes all the way back to the days of slavery, when enslaved black women were forced to breast-feed their slave master’s babies with their own breast milk. Known as wet-nursing, this exploited the motherhood of black wom- en while forcing them to disregard their own children. Since then, black women have been at the forefront of social movements in America — dating back at least to Har- riet Tubman’s leadership of the Under- ground Railroad, which helped 100,000 people escape from slavery. Whether it was the women’s suffrage or civil rights movement, African Amer- ican women were “the critical mass, the grassroots leaders challenging America to embrace justice and equality for all,” as an exhibit at the Women’s National History Museum puts it. And when America’s earliest forms of feminism began to unravel, it was So- journer Truth who inserted what’s now known as intersectionality — recogniz- ing not only gender discrimination but also its overlap with racial discrimina- tion — in her famous poem “Ain’t I A Woman?” The list goes on. Black women like Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell fought passionately for women’s voting rights without ever getting the recognition that better known white suf- fragettes enjoyed. Even today, the cultural revolution around sexual assault and harassment owes a huge debt to the #MeToo move- ment founded by Tarana Burke, a black woman who started the movement a de- cade before it went viral. And it plays out through our elections. In the Alabama Senate race, 98 percent of black women voted for Doug Jones. They’re the reason he beat Republican Roy Moore, who was widely known for making inappropriate sexual advances on teenage girls. Many Americans did recognize the black women who kept Moore out of the Senate. That’s good news. But it was still a white former prosecutor they were sending to Washington, who may now shy away from black women to please conservative whites in his deep-red state. If we’re serious about having black women lead, we can’t stop at recogniz- ing them. We need to empower them both economically and politically. Over 100 black women are running for state and local offices this year. Giv- ing them the consideration they deserve would say a lot more than simply count- ing on Oprah — or anyone else — to clean up Trump’s mess alone. Jessicah Pierre is the inequality media specialist at the Institute for Policy Stud- ies. Distributed by OtherWords.org. Advertise with diversity in The Portland Observer Call 503-288-0033 or email ads@portlandobserver.com
