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.
From global politics to cultural milestones, this edition brings a powerful mix of African and diaspora perspectives:
Global Affairs: U.S. imposes new travel bans; DRC restricts media coverage; Tanzania blocks social media.
Politics: Trump lifts Syria sanctions; UK-US tariff talks stall
Business: Nigeria boosts oil investments; Egypt expands pharma exports
Health: WHO issues RSV vaccine guidance; warns against flavored nicotine
Entertainment: Farewell to Ngugi wa Thiong’o; Kizz Daniel drops new EP
Sports: Coco Gauff reaches French Open semis; Ronaldo leads Portugal
Climate: Niger flood crisis; EU sets 2040 climate goals
Tech & Diplomacy: Nigeria to deploy 7,000 telecom towers; Ethiopia secures IMF deal
Diaspora Watch FREE Digital View: https://diasporawatch.com/3d-flip-book/diaspora-watch-vol-49/
On Demand Print: https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/3088405?__r=1069759
SUBSCRIBE TO DIASPORA WATCH NOW ON THE BELOW LINK !!!
https://diasporawatch.com/subscribe-to-diaspora-watch-newspaper/
Celebrating African excellence and spotlighting pressing global issues.
#DiasporaWatch #AfricaInFocus #GlobalNews #CulturalVoices #AfricanPerspective
Diaspora Watch 48th Edition: A Closer Look at Global Issues and African Developments
Diaspora Watch FREE Digital View: https://diasporawatch.com/3d-flip-book/diaspora-watch-vol-48/
On Demand Print: https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/3083637?__r=1069759
SUBSCRIBE TO DIASPORA WATCH NOW ON THE BELOW LINK !!!
https://diasporawatch.com/subscribe-to-diaspora-watch-newspaper/
In this edition of Diaspora Watch, we shed light on several pressing issues affecting the African continent and its diaspora community.
The Ghana Embassy in the US has been embroiled in controversy over a visa scam, leading to its temporary closure. Meanwhile, the M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo have faced accusations of war crimes, sparking concerns about regional stability.
On a more positive note, we highlight some of the top African beauty brands that are making waves globally. Namibia’s President has appointed special advisors to oversee upstream projects, signaling a commitment to economic growth.
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Kenya have renewed diplomatic ties with the appointment of a new ambassador, paving the way for enhanced cooperation between the two regions.
In other news, the Africa-Caribbean Trade Forum is set to take place in Grenada, providing a platform for economic collaboration and development. Tanzania has introduced a new requirement for barcode registration on local goods, aiming to boost trade and commerce.
Beyond Africa, we examine the implications of a recent bill passed by the US House of Representatives and its potential impact on global affairs.
We also take a moment to celebrate the remarkable journey of Dr. Kimma Wreh, a scholar who has weathered the storms of civil war and cyber warfare, emerging as a beacon of resilience and expertise.
Finally, we celebrate the achievements of Nigerian athlete Tobi Amusan, who shattered records and won the 100m hurdles at the Diamond League.
This edition of Diaspora Watch offers a diverse range of stories and insights, showcasing the complexities and triumphs of our global community.
The United States House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping Republican tax and spending package on Thursday, marking a significant legislative victory for President Donald Trump.
Dubbed his “one big, beautiful bill,” the legislation now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to undergo notable revisions.
The bill is both ambitious and controversial, containing measures that target several key sectors, including healthcare, taxation, immigration, education, and social welfare.
A centerpiece of the bill is the permanent extension of the individual income tax cuts originally introduced in the GOP’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
However, these cuts come at a steep price.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposed tax changes would add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Meanwhile, the legislation proposes deep spending cuts to vital safety net programs.
Medicaid funding would be slashed by nearly $700 billion, a number expected to rise once recent updates to the bill are assessed. Similarly, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) would lose $267 billion in federal support.
The bill includes measures that align with longstanding Republican policy goals and campaign promises made by President Trump.
These include significant investments in border security, enhanced systems to curb immigration, and the development of a massive new missile defense shield.
It also proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the air traffic control system, new fees targeting electric vehicle users, and a shift away from federal student loans.
To offset the cost of the tax breaks and increased defense and immigration-related spending, the House GOP aimed for at least $1.5 trillion in spending reductions.
However, Senate Republicans are likely to revise the bill, potentially softening some of the more aggressive cuts.
Because the legislation is advancing through budget reconciliation, it requires only a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the need for Democratic support.
Among the most contentious provisions is the introduction of work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.
For the first time in the program’s six-decade history, non-exempt adults between the ages of 19 and 64 would need to work at least 80 hours per month or engage in approved activities like schooling or community service to retain coverage.
The implementation date has been moved up to the end of 2026, raising concerns that more people could lose coverage sooner.
Exceptions would apply to groups such as parents, pregnant women, medically frail individuals, and those with substance abuse disorders.
The legislation also mandates more frequent eligibility checks for Medicaid expansion recipients and requires certain low-income adults to contribute financially to their care.
It includes penalties for states that use their own funds to cover undocumented immigrants, reducing their federal Medicaid matching funds by 10%.
States would face new limitations on the taxes they can levy on healthcare providers, a revenue stream used to enhance provider reimbursements and health services.
A notable incentive was added for the ten states that have not expanded Medicaid. These states would be allowed to send larger supplemental payments to healthcare providers, potentially deterring them from expanding coverage.
Additionally, the bill delays a Biden administration rule intended to streamline Medicaid enrollment until 2035, which could make it harder for individuals to obtain or renew coverage.
Another controversial aspect of the bill involves changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
It proposes codifying a Trump-era initiative that would shorten the ACA’s open enrollment period and eliminate year-round sign-up options for low-income individuals.
In a last-minute amendment, GOP lawmakers reinstated funding for cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which Trump had previously eliminated.
While this might lower out-of-pocket costs, it could reduce the generosity of premium subsidies, prompting some to drop their coverage.
According to early CBO estimates, these healthcare-related changes could lead to 8.6 million more people being uninsured by 2034—a figure expected to increase as the final provisions are analyzed.
The legislation also enhances the child tax credit, increasing it from $2,000 to $2,500 per child from 2025 through 2028.
However, eligibility is restricted to parents with Social Security numbers, eliminating access for those who file taxes using individual taxpayer identification numbers—typically undocumented immigrants—thereby affecting around two million children.
In a symbolic nod to Trump’s branding, the bill creates “Trump accounts,” officially named “money accounts for growth and advancement” (MAGA accounts).
These accounts would be established for U.S. citizen children born between 2025 and 2028, with an initial federal contribution of $1,000. Families could contribute up to $5,000 annually.
The funds, inaccessible until the child turns 18, could be used for higher education or first-time home purchases and would be taxed at capital gains rates. The account would expire when the beneficiary turns 31.
Fulfilling a major campaign pledge, the bill exempts income from tips and overtime from federal taxation for qualifying workers.
This applies specifically to traditionally tipped occupations and to hourly workers, excluding those earning more than $160,000 annually.
These tax breaks would be in effect from 2025 through 2028 and would also be available to non-itemizing taxpayers.
Senior citizens are not left out, as the bill increases their standard deduction by $4,000 from 2025 through 2028. However, this benefit phases out for individuals with incomes above $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.
This measure is positioned as an indirect fulfillment of Trump’s promise to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, which cannot be addressed under budget reconciliation rules.
The package introduces a temporary car loan interest deduction, allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 annually for interest on vehicles purchased after 2025, provided the cars are assembled in the U.S.
This benefit phases out for individuals earning more than $100,000 and couples earning above $200,000.
Other tax reliefs include a temporary boost to the standard deduction and permanent changes that favor wealthier Americans.
The estate tax exemption would be permanently set at $15 million per individual, adjusted for inflation.
The bill also enhances a deduction for owners of pass-through entities, such as partnerships and sole proprietorships, increasing it from 20% to 23%.
The legislation raises the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions to $40,000 for those earning up to $500,000, addressing long-standing concerns from lawmakers in high-tax states.
For single filers earning up to $250,000, the cap would be raised to $15,000. These adjustments would gradually phase back down and remain in effect until 2034.
Businesses also benefit from the bill, with the return of full, first-year deductions for equipment purchases and research and development costs, which had been curtailed in previous years. These provisions would expire after 2029.
Moreover, companies could temporarily write off expenses related to constructing or upgrading certain facilities, although deductions for purchases of professional sports teams would be limited.
Finally, the bill significantly increases taxes on universities and private foundations. The endowment tax rate for some universities would rise from 1.4% to as high as 21%, and private foundation taxes would jump to as much as 10%.
These measures aim to generate revenue but have sparked criticism from institutions that rely on endowment income for operational and scholarship support.
In summary, the House-passed bill is a comprehensive and controversial overhaul of the nation’s tax and spending priorities.
While it offers substantial tax relief and fulfills several of President Trump’s campaign promises, it does so at the expense of key social safety net programs and could result in millions of Americans losing healthcare coverage.
The Senate’s response to this bill will determine its final shape and its impact on the American people.
-
News2 days agoTerror Leader Calls for Attacks on Trump, U.S. Officials Over Israel Support
-
News2 days agoSouth Africa Flood Disaster Leaves at Least 49 Dead, Dozens Missing
-
News2 days agoU.S., China Reach Preliminary Trade Deal Including Rare Earth Mineral Access
-
News1 week agoAfrican Union Condemns Trump Administration’s Travel Ban
-
News1 week agoMokwa Flooding Death Toll Rises to 200, Over 500 Still Missing
-
Diaspora6 days agoDiaspora Watch – Vol. 49