Diaspora
The Long American Tradition Of Categorizing Immigrants As Either Good Or Bad
The Long American Tradition Of Categorizing Immigrants As Either Good Or Bad
BY H I D E TA K A H I R O TA
In February, President Donald Trump’s Administration sent 178 Venezuelan migrants to the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is the latest chapter of the Trump Administration’s crackdown on immigrants, a project that officials have said will focus on those with records of unauthorized entry and violent crimes, or “the worst of the worst,” as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has put it. Advocates of strict border policing today typically divide noncitizens in the United States into two groups: regular immigrants and irregular (unauthorized) immigrants. Then, they disparage the latter as “illegal aliens” and call for their deportation.
This dichotomous categorization of immigrants is in part rooted in 19th century discourse on foreign-born workers, which divided them into “natural” and “unnatural” immigrants. Then as now, separating immigrants into clean binaries may reflect the ideological debates of the present moment, but seldom does doing so reflect the realities they are facing at that time. In the mid-19th century, some Americans criticized immigrant workers for threatening their employment by working at extremely low wages. U.S. workers’ opposition to immigrant labor became particularly strong during the 1870s and
1880s in response to the growth of
industrial capitalism after the Civil
War. At that time, U.S. workers suffered exploitative labor practices and the decline of wages, while the industrial and commercial elite enjoyed the extreme concentration of wealth. These situations provoked radical labor activism. Many labor leaders viewed immigrants employed by capitalists at low wages as advancing the unequal distribution of wealth and contributing to the impoverishment of U.S. workers.
Organized labor directed its harshest criticism against foreign contract workers, who were believed to be imported by capitalists as strikebreakers. Some employers did import immigrants as strikebreakers directly from Europe, but this practice was relatively rare. Many, if not most, foreign-born workers employed as strikebreakers immigrated to the U.S. on their own and were later hired by employers. Also, imported immigrants were not necessarily unskilled laborers; they included skilled workers, such as window glass workers. Nevertheless, opponents of contract workers claimed that capitalists conducted large scale importations of “ignorant, servile, unskilled, and debased labor,” or “‘pauper labor’ of Europe.”
Negative sentiment against contract laborers led to President Chester A. Arthur signing a bill that became known as the Foran Act on February 26, 1885. The Foran Act, also called the “alien contract labor law,” was named after its sponsor, Martin A. Foran, a former labor leader and a U.S. representative from Ohio. The act prohibited individuals and companies from prepaying, assisting, or encouraging the immigration of contract workers in other words, foreigners immigrating under contracts agreements to work in the United States and its territories. The law soon was amended in 1888 to begin deporting foreign contract workers already in the country.
In 1891, Congress went a step further by integrating these restrictions on contract workers into general immigration law, which administered the entry and removal of all foreigners, except the Chinese, whose immigration was restricted by Chinese exclusion laws. The Immigration Act of 1891 added contract workers to the list of prohibited groups of foreigners, including people likely to become public charges, people with contagious diseases, people with mental illness, and criminals.
Central to arguments in favor of the Foran Act was a view of imported workers as unfree, degraded workers, comparable to enslaved people. Proponents of the Foran Act argued that contract workers were unfree people in that their employers controlled them from the moment of their arrival in the United States. Foran argued that contract workers were “not freemen . . . . they are virtually the slaves of those greedy corporations who bring them here.” Forced into “the struggle for existence” over employment, many Americans would be replaced by “these foreign serfs.”
He thus presented the bill as an antislavery measure to protect American workers from competition with unfree labor imported from abroad. In a nation that abolished chattel slavery just two decades ago after the Civil War, opposition to a type of labor that seemed to resemble slavery was a powerful argument.
Labor leaders also stressed that as unfree people, contract workers did not come to the U.S. voluntarily; instead they were induced to migrate by capitalists. These workers, as Foran claimed, “do not initiate their coming.” Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), advanced the binary between free and unfree immigrants, declaring that he had no objection to immigration, so long as “they come here of their own free will.”
These perceptions of contract workers were built upon the existing racist idea that Chinese immigrants to the United States were “coolies,” or unfree indentured workers. Similar views applied to immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, whom many Americans regarded as poor, uneducated, and inferior. Even though many immigrant workers were imported from Belgium, England, Germany, and Ireland, labor leaders predominantly critiqued Italian and Hungarian immigration, blaming capitalists for importing “as so many cattle, large numbers of degraded, ignorant, brutal Italian and Hungarian laborers.” As the San Francisco Call expressed, the condemnation was soon extended to the importation of “destitute Japanese pauper laborers.”
The criticism of labor importation acquired new phrases by the turn of the 20th century. Opponents of contract workers denounced their immigration induced or assisted by employers an transportation companies working with them as “artificial” or“unnatural” immigration.
The AFL resolved to oppose “all artificially stimulated immigration” and demanded “absolute prohibition of the landing of all contract and assisted emigrants.” In 1901, the congressional Industrial Commission on immigration condemned “the artificial immigration induced by employers for the purpose of breaking labor organizations.” Special immigration inspector Marcus Braun claimed that “we are burdened with a dangerous and most injurious unnatural immigration.”
During the first two decades of the 20th century, the Commissioner-General of Immigration, the head of the federal Bureau of Immigration, constantly used such terms as “artificial,” “unnatural,”and “stimulated” immigration disapproving of the importation of contract workers.The implication was clear that “natural” immigration, or the immigration of free people coming to the U.S. on their own, would be more desirable, and better suited to American life. Indeed, during the making of the alien contract labor law, Foran argued that “the best class of immigrants come” from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, while Italy and Hungary sent contract workers to the United States. By the early 20th century, “unnatural” immigration was more commonly associated with immigration from southern and eastern Europe, Asia, and Mexico.
Herein lies one origin of the binary framework of immigration discourse in the United States today which divides noncitizens into “illegal aliens” and legal immigrants. The critique of contract workers created the ideas of natural and unnatural immigration, so that contract workers, or unnatural immigrants, could be vilified and their exclusion justified through contrast with the opposite category, free and natural immigrants. The debate over imported labor and the implementation of the Foran Act laid some of the discursive foundations for today’s debates by helping create a context in which immigration was discussed in dichotomous terms.
Ultimately, the distinction between natural and unnatural immigration remained murky in practice. Officials used their own discretion to decide what contract or assistance meant, often to the disadvantage of migrant groups they considered undesirable. Most immigrants whom they excluded as contract workers were coming to the United States voluntarily, and even those joining their U.S.-based family members could be labeled as contract workers. The binary categorization served as a tool to vilify some foreigners as unnatural immigrants and justify their exclusion.
Today, the category of the “illegal alien” has similar functions. It stigmatizes Latinx migrants, regardless of their immigration status, and legitimizes radical and inhumane approaches to border policing, while immigration restrictionists use it in expansive ways to inaccurately include lawful asylum seekers.
Regarding the migrants sent to Guantánamo Bay, the Trump Administration has not provided sufficient proof of their status and criminality. But reporting by ProPublica and Texas Tribune indicates that at least some of those sent to Guantanamo Bay had no criminal record at all, and many are, by the Trump Administration’s own declarations “low risk.” In fact, some of the people Guantanamo Bay can not even be labeled as unauthorized immigrants, because they entered the U.S. lawfully.
Categorization has been one of the fundamental problems, and the most unreliable ideas, in U.S. immigration policy. The words, labels, or categories that lawmakers use to describe different immigrant groups shape public support or disapproval. Those labels, however, are often arbitrary and do not match the realities of the groups, to the detriment of the immigrants and the rule of law itself.
Zenith Bank Plc has announced a Diaspora engagement programme aimed at providing essential banking and identity services to Nigerians residing in the United States, with activities scheduled to hold in Houston and Dallas, Texas.
The initiative, according to information obtained by Diaspora Watch Newspaper, targeted at Nigerians in the diaspora, is designed to ease access to banking services and strengthen financial inclusion among citizens living abroad.
The programme will feature free Bank Verification Number (BVN) enrolment, National Identification Number (NIN) enrolment, seamless account opening, account reactivation, and digital banking onboarding.
Diaspora Watch Newspaper further gathered that participants will also benefit from mobile and internet banking activation, instant debit card issuance, and access to mortgage products offered at concessionary rates.
The engagement will further provide a platform for interaction with IT experts, creatives, influencers, and other service exporters, in line with efforts to deepen diaspora participation in Nigeria’s economy.
The Houston leg of the exercise will take place at the Hilton Houston Post Oak by the Galleria on February 24, 25 and 28, 2026, while another session will hold at The Ion, 4201 Main Street, Houston, on February 26 and 27, 2026.
The Dallas session is scheduled for March 3, 4 and 5, 2026, at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel by the Galleria.
Activities are expected to run daily from 9:00am to 6:00pm. Prospective participants have been advised to come along with valid proof of address as stipulated in the registration requirements.
Zenith Bank noted that the programme forms part of its ongoing diaspora banking strategy, aimed at supporting Nigerians abroad with convenient access to financial services and fostering stronger economic ties between the diaspora community and Nigeria.
For further enquiries, interested individuals are encouraged to contact Zenith Bank’s Diaspora Banking desk via WhatsApp or telephone, or through the official diaspora banking email.
Register for the event: JOIN ZENITH BANK IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TEXAS
Website: https://www.zenithbank.com
WhatsApp/call: +234 913 107 2967
Zenith Bank to Host Diaspora Engagement, Banking Services for Nigerians in Texas
Nigeria – US Defence Cooperation: A Reflection from the Diaspora, by Boniface Ihiasota
The defence relationship between Nigeria and the United States represents one of the most complex and consequential aspects of Nigeria’s foreign policy in the 21st century. Rooted in decades of military engagement, training, strategic dialogue, intelligence sharing, and equipment acquisition, this partnership reflects shared interests in regional stability, combating violent extremism, and strengthening military institutions. For many in the Nigerian diaspora, this cooperation carries both hopes for enhanced security at home and concerns about sovereignty, national strategy, and the implications of external influence.
At its core, Nigeria-US defence cooperation has evolved from traditional military diplomacy to a more multi-faceted, operational collaboration. Since the early 2000s, the United States has provided sustained security sector assistance to Nigeria. According to U.S. government data, more than $232 million in security support was delivered between 2000 and 2021, with notifications of $593 million in Foreign Military Sales and approximately $305 million in direct commercial defence sales to support counter-terrorism, border security, and professionalization of the Nigerian Armed Forces. In 2022 the U.S. announced nearly $997 million in a major foreign military sale that included attack helicopters and associated training as part of long-term capability enhancement.
In practical terms, the partnership nurtures capacity building, professional military education, and logistics cooperation. Both nations have exchanged senior military leaders and engaged in joint strategic dialogues to align responses to shared threats. Nigerian defence officials and U.S. counterparts have regularly convened to strengthen frameworks for cooperation, reaffirming commitments to respect Nigeria’s sovereignty while leveraging U.S. technical expertise.
As insecurity in Nigeria has worsened, especially with the prolonged insurgency of Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) as well as rising banditry and extremist violence, the practical aspects of the partnership have taken on heightened urgency. Recent developments illustrate this vividly. In early 2026, Nigeria formally invited additional U.S. military support for training, intelligence sharing, and technical assistance. Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters on Monday confirmed the arrival of about 100 U.S. military personnel and equipment at Bauchi, with planned joint training exercises aimed at enhancing Nigerian troops’ capacity to detect and neutralize extremist groups. Local authorities clarified that the U.S. personnel serve in advisory and training roles, under Nigerian command, in line with bilateral agreements and respect for Nigerian sovereignty.
In neighboring Abuja and among diaspora communities, these movements sparked broad discussions about what external military involvement means for Nigeria’s autonomy and long-term security strategy. Advocacy groups like Citizens for Strategic Defence Cooperation have publicly endorsed the expanded partnership while stressing that it does not erode Nigeria’s sovereignty. They describe the engagement as “measured and strategic,” focused on capacity building, intelligence systems, and joint problem-solving rather than occupation or direct combat.
Beyond boots on the ground, the United States has engaged Nigeria in targeted counter-terrorism operations. In late 2025, the U.S. carried out airstrikes against Islamic State-linked camps in northwest Nigeria with Nigerian approval, employing precision guided munitions through U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) platforms. These strikes were designed to disrupt militant networks operating from Sahel corridors and were followed by coordinated intelligence sharing.
Still, the defence cooperation is not without controversy. In the diaspora, commentary reflects a spectrum of views: from optimism about the gains in confronting violent extremism to unease about foreign intervention and the framing of Nigeria’s internal conflicts in international discourse. Former U.S. statements by political leaders, including those linking Nigeria’s actions to religious persecution or threatening aid cuts, have sometimes strained diplomatic goodwill, prompting the Nigerian government to clarify its position and reject broad characterizations of the security situation.
Nonetheless, there are tangible operational outcomes that diaspora stakeholders often highlight as evidence of positive cooperation. Enhanced intelligence sharing has contributed to improved situational awareness for Nigerian forces during operations like Operation Hadin Kai in the North East and Operation Fasan Yamma in the northwest. The timely delivery of military hardware — including drones, helicopters, spare parts, and support systems — pledged by the U.S. demonstrates a sustained material investment in Nigeria’s defence architecture.
For many Nigerians abroad, this partnership epitomizes the balancing act between external support and internal agency. On one hand, there is recognition that no nation is an island in confronting transnational threats. On the other, there is a persistent call for transparency, accountability, and strategies that prioritize civilian protection and national ownership of security frameworks.
In conclusion, Nigeria–U.S. defence cooperation is a nuanced, evolving relationship rooted in shared interests and longstanding military engagement. While it brings considerable resources, training, and strategic depth to Nigeria’s fight against violent extremism, it also requires careful navigation of national interests, sovereignty considerations, and public perceptions — both at home and within the vibrant Nigerian diaspora. Ensuring that this cooperation yields tangible security improvements without undermining national autonomy remains a shared challenge for both nations.
Diaspora Watch Newspaper has released its 81st edition, delivering a sharp, authoritative and globally attuned package of journalism that interrogates power, policy and influence at a critical moment in international affairs.
Diaspora Watch FREE DIGITAL VIEW: https://diasporawatch.com/3d-flip-book/diaspora-watch-vol-81/
On-Demand Print: https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/3259915?__r=1069759
SUBSCRIBE TO DIASPORA WATCH NOW ON THE LINK BELOW: https://diasporawatch.com/subscribe-to-diaspora-watch-newspaper/
This latest edition captures the shifting dynamics of global security, diplomacy and governance, with a lead focus on deepening U.S.–Nigeria security engagement against the backdrop of rising terror threats. The report probes the strategic calculations behind the move and what it means for regional stability, sovereignty and counter-terrorism cooperation in West Africa.
Beyond security, the edition reflects the volatility of a world in transition. From renewed uncertainty in Libya following reports surrounding Muammar Gaddafi’s son, to mounting tensions in the United States over federal immigration enforcement and public protest, Diaspora Watch situates breaking developments within their broader political and social contexts.
The newspaper also turns attention to the future, spotlighting technological innovation aimed at Africa’s digital inclusion, as well as urgent calls for stronger regional integration in the Caribbean amid global trade headwinds. Energy policy debates, evolving diplomatic relations between Africa and the United States, and the deepening humanitarian emergency in the Democratic Republic of Congo are examined with clarity, balance and depth.
Rounding out the edition is a culture-driven back-page story that blends politics, celebrity and controversy, underscoring how influence and perception increasingly intersect in the global public space.
With its 81st edition, Diaspora Watch Newspaper reinforces its position as a trusted platform for diaspora-focused journalism—bold in perspective, rigorous in reporting and committed to telling Africa’s story within a rapidly changing world.
Stay connected with the world around you – read Diaspora Watch today!
Celebrating African excellence and spotlighting pressing global issues.
#DiasporaWatch #AfricaInFocus #GlobalNews #CulturalVoices #AfricanPerspective
CARICOM Chair Engages Guyana in Fresh Push for Regional Integration
Savannah Shield and the Security Recalibration of Kwara State
Who Is After Peter Obi? By Boniface Ihiasota
Pastor Jerry Eze Defends Miracles At UK Conference Amidst Criticism And Controversy
Diaspora Watch 20th Edition (October 14-20, 2024): Your Trusted Source for Global News and Insights
Tanzanian Man Reportedly Dies And Returns To Life Six Times
-
News7 days agoTrump Hails ‘Turnaround for the Ages’ in Record 110-Minute Address
-
News7 days agoMexico in Turmoil After CJNG Kingpin Killed in Military Operation
-
Analysis7 days agoSavannah Shield and the Security Recalibration of Kwara State
-
Analysis7 days agoWho Is After Peter Obi? By Boniface Ihiasota
-
News7 days agoCARICOM Chair Engages Guyana in Fresh Push for Regional Integration
-
News7 days agoUK Court Hears Recordings in Diezani Bribery Trial