Oct

14

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act signed into law in 1924 by President Coolidge. It was a modification of the 1917 Immigration Act which was the first law to establish quotas for entry into the United States.

Before 1917 the only numerical restrictions on entry to the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which excluded EVERYONE Chinese. Immigration acts had placed restrictions on individuals (1882 - no convicts, indigents, prostitutes, lunatics, idiots; 1903 - no anarchists, epileptics, crazies; 1907 - no infected, mentally or physically handicapped who could not work), but there had been no quotas. The 1917 Immigration Act continued the exclusion of the Chinese but extended it to everyone else in East Asia except the Japanese and the Filipinos. The law also imposed a literacy test for anyone over 16, but the test was for the person's own language, not just English.

The 1924 Act extended the outright exclusion to the Japanese and can reasonably be identified as the triggering event that allowed Fascists to take control over the government of Japan and spend the next decade and a half convincing the people who had embraced representative democracy, American jazz and baseball that they should choose their own race as the one to come first.

Humbert H. comments:

It’s interesting how some reasons for excluding specific groups from being able to immigrate have changed over time. “Strong economic competitor” has completely disappeared, whereas it was one of two main reasons for excluding the Japanese. There must be some sort of widespread recognition that importing groups that demonstrate great achievement in some economic areas is good for the country even though there is certainly some collateral damage to the established population.

Stefan Jovanovich rejoins:

GR and I have different readings about the exclusion for the Japanese. It was not economic competition; the U.S. had a healthy positive trade balance with Japan between the two world wars. We sent them oil and wheat; they sent us toys and trinkets.

The political pressures for exclusion came from
(1) Teddy Roosevelt's complete hatred of the Japanese AND the Russians (Give a President the Nobel Peace prize and bad things always happen). That made disdain for the Nips into a bedrock belief of all progressive Republicans (Thank you Earl Warren)
(2) The continuing negotiations after the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922

Humbert H. clarifies:

I didn’t mean economic competition with Japan, but with Japanese immigrants, mainly in California

Asindu Drileba writes:

I heard from somewhere, that before World War 1, passports & visas where not enforced that seriously. You could just show up to any place you wanted to go to without many formal requirements. I just imagine if the world was like that? Anyone can show up anywhere anytime without any legal hurdles?

Noam Chomsky (MIT linguist) says that there are two kinds of globalization.
Globalization 1: Is the free movement of people (labour) around the world with less restrictions.
Globalization 2: Is the free movement of capital & goods (products) with little legal restrictions.

He says that as we we're entering the 21st century, there has been a sharp decrease in Globalization 1 and a sharp increase in Globalization 2. It has been described that Globalization 2 has benefited corporations a lot (some even claim it has benefited the economy as a whole).

Can a country benefit economically (can corporations & markets see gains?) by making immigration as easy as it is to send money around the world? That is, people (labour) moving around with very little restrictions?

Jeff Watson offers:

It would be better this way:

A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer
Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen.

Humbert H. responds:

Of course anyone with a minimal economic education would realize that free movement of “labor” or entrepreneurs would result in creation of enormous wealth. In the real world though, new immigrants going on the dole has become a feature and not a bug in many wealthy countries. You read anything from England, and that seems like an accepted fact there. The list of various culture-clash and crime issues is long and only irritates people who are for unrestricted immigration. So this not a pure economics problem but more multifaceted. My point was that something, perhaps better knowledge of economics or personal experience, or maybe less dog-eats-dog competition for survival, taught the populace that importing highly capable people usually leads to good outcomes.

Jordan Low adds:

Do you enjoy Bing Cherries? He lost his farm in the act.

Ah Bing

Ah Bing was a 19th century horticulturalist and credited as the cultivator and namesake of the popular Bing cherry. Bing migrated to the U.S. around 1855 and worked as foreman in the Lewelling family fruit orchards in Milwaukie, Oregon.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search