If you don’t learn from it, history will repeat itself.
One constant in our nation’s history is how it treats immigrants.
Prior to 1892, immigrants were processed by individual states,
but that all changed with the opening of Ellis Island in 1892. Until its closure
in 1954, nearly 12,000,000 people passed through its gates.
The arrival of that many people caused native born Americans
to fear job losses, and our immigration policies gradually got more
restrictive.
In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first
widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national
security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this
legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way
for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test
that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading
comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants
upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in
making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry
anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for
Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily
limited Japanese immigration to the United States in the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
The Philippines was a U.S. colony, so its citizens were U.S. nationals and
could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred
Zone, but the
Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882, which was not repealed until 1943, when China became an ally of American
against the Japanese.
Immigration Quotas
The
literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from
entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in
the 1920s. Immigration expert and Republican Senator from Vermont William P. Dillingham introduced
a measure to create immigration quotas, which he set at three percent of the
total population of the foreign-born of each nationality in the United States
as recorded in the 1910 census. This put the total number of visas available
each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas
of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. President Wilson opposed
the restrictive act, preferring a more liberal immigration policy, so he used
the pocket veto to prevent its passage. In early 1921, the newly inaugurated
President Warren Harding called Congress back to a special session to pass the
law. In 1922, the act was renewed for another two years.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act
We have also had a long history of people from Mexico coming
into our country, both legally and illegally.
The Bracero Program (from the Spanish term bracero [bɾaˈse.ɾo], meaning "manual laborer" or "one who works using his
arms") was a U.S. Government-sponsored program that imported Mexican farm
and railroad workers into the United States between the years 1942 and 1964.
The program, which was designed to fill agriculture shortages during
World War II, offered employment contracts to 5 million braceros in 24 U.S.
states. It was the largest guest worker program in
U.S. history.
The program was the result of a series of laws and diplomatic agreements,
initiated on August 4, 1942, when the United States signed the Mexican Farm Labor
Agreement with Mexico. For these farmworkers, the agreement guaranteed decent
living conditions (sanitation, adequate
shelter, and food) and a minimum wage of 30 cents an hour, as
well as protections from forced military service, and guaranteed that a part of
wages was to be put into a private savings account in Mexico. The program also
allowed the importation of contract laborers from Guam as a temporary measure
during the early phases of World War II.
The agreement was extended with the Migrant Labor Agreement of 1951 (Pub. L. 82–78),
enacted as an amendment to the Agricultural Act of
1949 by the United States Congress,
which set the official parameters for the Bracero Program until its termination
in 1964.
In studies published in 2018 and 2023, it was found that the Bracero
Program did not have an adverse effect on the wages or employment for
American-born farm workers, and that termination of the program had
adverse impact on American-born farmers and resulted in increased farm
mechanization.
Since abolition of the Bracero Program, temporary agricultural workers
have been admitted with H-2 and H-2A visas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program
Operation Wetback was a controversial immigration
enforcement initiative launched by the United States in 1954. Aimed at curbing
illegal immigration, it primarily targeted Mexican nationals.
What was Operation
Wetback?
It was a large-scale effort by
the U.S. government to deport undocumented Mexican laborers. This operation saw the
collaboration of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
and local law enforcement agencies. Over a million individuals were deported during this period, often under harsh and inhumane
conditions. The program was a response to growing concerns about illegal
immigration and its impact on American jobs and wages. However, it also sparked significant
debate about human rights and the ethics of mass deportation.
Understanding Operation Wetback provides insight into the complexities of immigration
policy and its
long-lasting effects on U.S.-Mexico relations.
Why Was Operation Wetback Implemented?
Labor Market Concerns: There was a belief that illegal
immigrants were taking jobs from American citizens.
Economic Pressure: The influx of illegal immigrants was
seen as a strain on public resources.
Political Pressure: Politicians faced pressure from
constituents to address the issue of illegal immigration.
Agricultural Sector: The agricultural sector relied
heavily on migrant labor, leading to complex dynamics in labor supply and
demand.
Border Security: Strengthening border security was a priority for the Eisenhower
administration.
What Were the Effects of Operation Wetback?
Family Separation: Many families were separated as a result of the
deportations.
Labor Shortages: The agricultural sector faced labor shortages due to the
mass deportations.
Human Rights Concerns: There were reports of human rights abuses during the
operation.
Public Opinion: The operation received mixed reactions from the public
and politicians.
Legal Challenges: Some deportations faced legal challenges and scrutiny.
The concerns of 1957 are still prevalent today,
but Donald Trump has also added the fear of crime, even though illegal immigrants
commit fewer crimes than native Americans.
As a result, the House recently passed the Laken Riley
bill, named after a George nursing student who was murdered by a Venezuela man.
Although it is not possible to determine how much Operation wetback
cost the U.S. Economy, the links below provide more complete general information.
https://facts.net/history/historical-events/36-facts-about-operation-wetback/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
What we CAN determine is how much Trump’s mass deportation
plans will cost the economy.
By one
estimate from an immigration policy group, GDP could shrink by $1.1 trillion to
$1.7 trillion, but in his recent comments Trump has also said his plan will
bring more businesses into the country and the U.S. needs more workers to grow.
The pro-immigration American
Immigration Council estimates a one-time push to deport all 11
million undocumented immigrants would cost $315 billion, while deporting one
million people a year would cost $88 million annually. The operation could also
have economic impacts, the group notes, including lost tax revenue, less
consumer spending and labor shortages—especially in industries like agriculture
and construction. Trump has defended the costs, saying there is "no price
tag" for his mass deportation plans and "we have no choice.
Both Mexico and Venezuela have refused to accept people who
have been deported, which prompted Trump to impose tariffs on Venezuela in
retaliation.
The deportations have already started, and local communities are
using various methods to fight them.
It’s difficult to determine how long the deportations last, but
it’s clear than we need more people like bishop Mariann Budde to prevent the
worst excesses.
On January 21, 2025, the day after Donald Trump's second inauguration as president, Budde delivered the homily at the interfaith prayer service traditionally held at the Washington National Cathedral after each presidential inauguration. Also in attendance were the new vice president, JD Vance; House speaker Mike Johnson; and Pete Hegseth, Trump's nominee for defense secretary. In the sermon, Budde addressed Trump, who was sitting in the first pew, urging him to show mercy and compassion to vulnerable people, saying: "Millions have put their trust in you. And as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy on the people in our country who are scared now." Budde specifically cited he LGBTQ+ communities, immigrants, and refugees fleeing from war in their countries.
After the service, Trump disparaged Budde as a "so-called
Bishop" and "Radical Left hard line Trump hater" on his social
media website Truth Social. Trump
called the service "very boring" and demanded an apology from Budde
and the Episcopal Church. Trump allies also attacked Budde; evangelical
pastor Robert Jeffress condemned
the bishop for having "insulted rather than encouraged our great
president" while Republican congressman Mike Collins said
that Budde (who is a U.S. citizen) "should be added to the deportation
list". According to Baptist News Global, Megan Basham and other far-right religious
figures used the incident to press their views against the ordination of women as
pastors. Budde's
remarks were welcomed by civil rights advocate Bernice King, Pope Francis's biographer Austen Ivereigh, and other public figures.
Budde declined to respond to Trump's reaction to her message; in
interviews, she described her sermon as fairly mild, with the intended
message to the new president that "The country has been entrusted to you.
And one of the qualities of a leader is mercy." Budde said that unity
requires mercy, humility, and the upholding of human dignity; she warned against America's
"culture of contempt" as well as the harms of polarizing narratives.
Not surprisingly, Budde has received death threats from Trump supporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariann_Budde
No comments:
Post a Comment