Making Americans

1. The US Shifted from Open Immigration to Racially Filtered Selection

From broadly accepting all comers in the former century, in the twentieth century, U.S. immigration policy shifted in the 1920s to a finely filtered regime of selection.

A dramatic policy reversal. The United States, once a beacon of open immigration in the 19th century, underwent a profound transformation in its approach to newcomers by the 1920s. This shift was not merely about controlling numbers but fundamentally about selecting "desirable" immigrants based on perceived racial and ethnic suitability. This marked a departure from the earlier, more laissez-faire policies, introducing a new era of stringent, often discriminatory, federal control.

Roots of restriction. The restrictionist agenda began to gain traction from the 1880s, fueled by anxieties over changing demographics and economic pressures. Early measures included:

• The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred an entire ethnic group.
• Exclusion of specific categories like "idiots," "lunatics," and paupers.
  These initial steps laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive system of selection that would eventually target European immigrants based on their perceived "racial" characteristics.

Group selection over individual merit. The culmination of this shift was the quota-based system formalized in the 1920s, which fundamentally altered the criteria for entry. Instead of evaluating individuals on their self-worth or potential contributions, policy-makers began to judge them by their national and racial affiliations. This new principle of "group selection" became the bedrock of US immigration law for decades, replacing the traditional faith in individual merit with racially informed notions of "group" and a problematic conception of the "American race."

2. Anglo-Saxon Identity and Eugenics Shaped "American-ness"

Immigration policy proved to be a forum in which eugenists and eugenic arguments flourished.

Defining the "American" ideal. The restrictionist movement was deeply intertwined with a prevailing, often unstated, conception of American national identity as white and Anglo-Saxon. This view, rooted in the country's English inheritance, sought to ensure that new immigrants would be "assimilable" on these terms, implicitly excluding non-white groups already present in the United States. This narrow definition of "American-ness" became a powerful tool for justifying discriminatory policies.

Pseudo-science of eugenics. Eugenics, a pseudo-scientific movement advocating for selective breeding to improve the human "stock," provided a "scientific authenticity" to these racial prejudices. Figures like Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, director and expert at the Eugenics Record Office, tirelessly promoted the idea that:

• "Racial degeneracy" was a threat from "inferior" immigrant stocks.
• Immigration policy should prioritize "biological principles" over economic needs or asylum.
• "Feeble-mindedness" and other "socially inadequate" traits were hereditary and disproportionately found in certain immigrant groups.

A blueprint for exclusion. Laughlin, as an expert adviser to the House Committee on Immigration, translated these eugenic theories into concrete policy recommendations. He argued for:

• Higher intelligence standards for immigrants.
• Rigorous "family stock" tests to identify "degenerate" forebears.
• Restriction to "white races only," with further distinctions among European nationalities.
  This framework aimed to "breed up the American people by immigration," ensuring that only those deemed "eugenically superior" and compatible with the "American race" were admitted, thereby solidifying an Anglo-Saxon vision of the nation.

3. Americanization Was a Coercive, Exclusionary Process

"any analysis of Americanization, past and present, must accord coercion a role in the making of Americans."

Instilling a singular identity. The Americanization movement, particularly intense during and after World War I, was a self-conscious effort to define and impose a singular "American" identity. This was not a neutral process of cultural exchange but rather an Anglo-Conformity model, where immigrants were expected to shed their existing ethnic values and loyalties in favor of a predetermined Anglo-American ideal. The goal was to produce a citizenry consistent with a prior conception of American identity, not an unpredictable "melting-pot mixture."

Tools of conformity. The campaign utilized various institutions and methods to achieve its aims:

• Public schools: Served as a primary vehicle for teaching English, American history, and civic values, often overlooking the diverse backgrounds of immigrant children.
• Workplaces: Industrialists like Henry Ford established English classes and "American" values lessons, motivated by both idealism and the practical need for a common language among workers.
• Patriotic organizations: Groups like the American Legion actively lobbied for compulsory English instruction, patriotic exercises, and the teaching of American history, viewing non-English speakers as a "dangerous menace."

Political and cultural coercion. Post-1918, Americanization became increasingly politicized, driven by fears of anarchism and communism among "unassimilated foreigners." Secretary of Labor James Davis, a naturalized American himself, advocated for mandatory registration and education of aliens, believing it would "make more efficient our famous 'melting pot.'" This intense pressure to conform, often accompanied by suspicion of foreign languages and customs, created a coercive dynamic that marginalized ethnic and group loyalties, laying the groundwork for future challenges to this narrow vision of American identity.

4. The "Melting Pot" Myth Excluded Non-White Americans

The melting pot historically and institutionally had no room for African Americans.

A selective narrative. The popular "melting pot" metaphor, famously articulated by St. Jean de Crèvecoeur and popularized by Israel Zangwill's play, presented America as a hybrid society where diverse European nationalities fused into a "new race." However, this narrative was fundamentally flawed and exclusionary. It deliberately omitted the experiences of involuntary immigrants and non-white populations, for whom the "melting pot" was never an option.

Racial boundaries of assimilation. The concept of "American-ness" was implicitly, and often explicitly, defined as white. This meant that while European immigrants, even those initially deemed "undesirable" like the Irish and Italians, could eventually assimilate and become "white," African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian immigrants were systematically excluded from this process. Ronald Takaki notes that the "status of racial inferiority assigned to the Chinese had been prefigured in the black and Indian past," highlighting the pre-existing racial hierarchy.

Reinforcing marginalization. The immigration debates of the 1920s, which focused almost entirely on distinctions among European immigrants, further cemented the marginalization of non-white groups. By defining "desirable" immigrants in terms of their compatibility with an Anglo-Saxon ideal, these policies implicitly reinforced the notion that African Americans were "unassimilable." This intellectual and political context ensured that the "melting pot" remained a racially partial model, contributing to the enduring racial inequality faced by African Americans and other non-white communities in the US polity.

5. The Dillingham Commission Legitimized "Old" vs. "New" Immigrant Distinctions

The new immigration as a class is far less intelligent than the old, approximately one-third of all those over 14 years of age when admitted being illiterate.

Formalizing prejudice. The Dillingham Commission, established in 1907, produced a monumental 42-volume report that profoundly influenced US immigration policy for decades. Its most significant contribution was the formalization of a conceptual dichotomy between "old immigration" (from northern and western Europe) and "new immigration" (from southern and eastern Europe). This distinction, while seemingly demographic, was deeply rooted in racial and cultural prejudices.

Stereotypes and "scientific" backing. The commission characterized "old immigrants" as settlers who easily assimilated, integrated, and contributed to the nation. In stark contrast, "new immigrants" were portrayed as:

• Unskilled laborers, often temporary, with reduced political commitment.
• Concentrated in urban ethnic enclaves, resisting assimilation.
• Intellectually inferior, with high illiteracy rates.
• Prone to criminality, pauperism, and mental illness, posing a "fiscal burden."
  These characterizations, often based on flimsy evidence and biased interpretations, provided a veneer of "scientific" legitimacy to existing nativist sentiments and fueled the restrictionist movement.

Ignoring contradictory evidence. Despite commissioning anthropologist Franz Boas, whose research suggested that environmental factors, not inherent racial traits, caused physical changes in immigrants' descendants, the commission largely ignored these findings. Instead, it focused on data that supported its predetermined conclusions, such as the alleged disproportionate representation of immigrants in asylums and prisons. The commission's recommendations, including a literacy test and fixed racial quotas, directly paved the way for the discriminatory legislation of the 1920s, solidifying the notion that a vast array of new "racial" groups threatened the existing American "stock."

6. Segregation and Antilynching Failures Reinforced Black Second-Class Status

"Yours is a curious citizenship which loads you with burdens but denies you the fundamental rights to which all men are entitled unless we repudiate the faith of our Fathers proclaimed in the great Declaration of Independence upon which our government rests."

The paradox of citizenship. While the US debated the "suitability" of European immigrants, African Americans, many generations removed from involuntary immigration, faced a deeply entrenched system of second-class citizenship. The Supreme Court's 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling legally sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation, effectively legitimizing systemic discrimination across all facets of American life. This meant that for African Americans, the promise of American citizenship was a hollow one, burdened by duties but denied fundamental rights.

Federal government as enforcer. The federal government, particularly under the Woodrow Wilson administration, actively implemented and expanded segregation within its own civil service. African American employees were:

• Segregated in offices and facilities.
• Denied opportunities for advancement based on merit.
• Treated as "inferiors and pariahs," setting a precedent for broader societal discrimination.
  This institutionalized racism provided a powerful pretext for racist behavior throughout society, publicly demonstrating African Americans' differentiated status.

Congressional intransigence on lynching. The NAACP's tireless campaign for federal antilynching legislation, epitomized by the Dyer Bill in the 1920s, met with consistent failure. Despite overwhelming evidence of brutal lynchings and strong constitutional arguments for federal intervention, Southern Democrats, supported by a complacent Republican Party, successfully blocked the legislation. This legislative inaction underscored the federal government's unwillingness to protect its black citizens, further cementing their inferior status and highlighting the profound gap between America's democratic ideals and its racial realities.

7. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act Codified Racial Discrimination

"I think the American people want us to discriminate; and I don’t think discrimination in itself is unfair. We have got to discriminate. The only question that I think worries the committee is [which method] is the more plausible method of attaining that discrimination."

A legislative triumph for restrictionists. The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924, and its subsequent implementation of the national origins quota system in 1929, marked the definitive codification of racial discrimination in US immigration law. This legislation was the culmination of decades of lobbying by restrictionist groups and eugenists, who sought to drastically reduce immigration from southern and eastern Europe while preserving the nation's "Anglo-Saxon" character. The act reduced total annual immigration to 150,000 and set quotas based on the 1890 census, a deliberate choice to favor northwestern European nationalities.

The "national origins" deception. The "national origins" plan, implemented in 1929, purported to set quotas based on the ethnic composition of the US population at its founding, but it explicitly excluded "the descendants of slave immigrants" and other non-white groups. This was not a neutral calculation but a "scientific plan" designed to:

• Maintain the racial status quo and "homogeneity" of the country.
• Ensure "proper racial representation" for descendants of colonists and early settlers.
• Prevent the "dilution" of the "American race" by "inferior human stock."
  This framework, championed by figures like Congressman Albert Johnson and eugenics expert Harry Laughlin, was a bald attempt to "keep America American" in a white, Anglo-Saxon image.

A "slur on our citizenry." Critics, like Congressmen Samuel Dickstein and Adolph Sabath, rightly condemned the law as discriminatory, arguing it placed a "stamp of inferiority" on millions of citizens and "hurt the pride of nearly all friendly nations." The act's racial intentions were openly acknowledged by officials, who stated it was "intended to preserve the racial composition of the United States through the selection of immigrants from those countries whose traditions, languages and political systems were akin to those in this country." This legislation fundamentally compromised the United States' doctrine of equality, establishing a system of worth and desert incompatible with its proclaimed liberal principles.

8. Dismantling National Origins Was a Post-Civil Rights Imperative

"It is incredible to me that, in this year of 1952, we should again be enacting into law such a slur on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry."

Enduring discrimination. Despite the clear discriminatory nature of the national origins system, it remained the operating framework for US immigration until 1965. While some minor adjustments were made, such as the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Laws in 1943 (driven by wartime foreign policy, not domestic civil rights concerns), the core racial biases persisted. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, though ending the "whites only" naturalization bar, actually reinforced racial lines for Asian and Caribbean immigrants, drawing sharp criticism from President Truman.

Truman's moral stand. President Truman, in his powerful veto of the 1952 bill (which Congress overrode), denounced the national origins system as "false and unworthy" and a "slur on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry." He highlighted the hypocrisy of maintaining such a discriminatory system while fighting communism abroad, noting that it told allies like Italy and Greece, "You are less worthy to come to this country than Englishmen or Irishmen." Truman's commission subsequently recommended abolishing the system entirely, but these proposals were initially ignored.

The 1965 Act: a new era. The eventual dismantling of the national origins system in 1965 was inextricably linked to the broader Civil Rights Movement. The incongruity between domestic efforts to achieve racial equality and an immigration policy based on racial exclusion became untenable. President Lyndon Johnson, in signing the 1965 Immigration Act, declared it "incompatible with our basic American tradition," finally eliminating race, sex, nationality, and place of birth as criteria for immigrant visas. This landmark legislation, while introducing new preferences (like family reunification) that still favored existing populations, fundamentally rejected the explicit racial hierarchies that had defined US immigration for over four decades.

9. Ethnic Revival and Multiculturalism Challenged the Assimilationist Ideal

"The conflict and violence of the 1960s shattered the illusions that America is a ‘melting pot’ of different ethnic groups."

The limits of assimilation. The post-1960s era witnessed a profound challenge to the traditional "melting pot" assimilation model, spurred by the Civil Rights Movement and the growing recognition of historical injustices. This period saw the rise of a "Race Pride Movement" among various groups, including Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, who sought to reclaim and celebrate their distinct cultural and ethnic identities. This "ethnic revival" among white Americans, too, questioned the idea of a singular, imposed American identity, highlighting the resilience of ethnic loyalties despite generations of assimilationist pressures.

Multiculturalism as a response. Multiculturalism emerged as a programmatic ambition to advocate for equal respect for all cultural and ethnic identities within the political system. It sought to:

• Revise educational curricula to include the historical experiences of previously neglected groups.
• Challenge the "Anglocentric culture" that had dominated narratives of US history.
• Address the "historical neglect" and "misrecognition" of diverse traditions.
  For many, particularly African Americans, multiculturalism became a means to confront the "fundamental refusal of other Americans to accept blacks... as suitable candidates for assimilation," thereby rejecting the very premise of the melting pot.

Ongoing debates and tensions. The rise of multiculturalism, however, has not been without its critics. Some, like Arthur Schlesinger Jr., view it as a "counter-revolution" that threatens national unity and promotes "self-ghettoization." Debates over issues like bilingual education and the content of historical curricula continue to reflect deep-seated disagreements about the nature of American identity. While critics argue that multiculturalism fosters intolerance and dilutes core American values, proponents emphasize the need to acknowledge the nation's "multiple traditions" and the historical coercion inherent in past assimilation efforts, arguing that a truly diverse democracy requires a more inclusive and respectful understanding of its constituent cultures.

10. "Whiteness" Remains a Central, Contested Aspect of American Identity

"American means white" and that "deep within the word ‘American’ is its association with race."

The invisible norm. Toni Morrison's powerful assertion that "American means white" encapsulates a profound historical reality: for much of its history, the dominant conception of American identity was implicitly, and often explicitly, white. This "whiteness" was not a static biological fact but a fluid social and legal construct, manipulated to define who belonged and who was excluded. The immigration debates of the 1920s, focusing almost exclusively on distinctions among European "white" nationalities, reinforced this racialized understanding, further marginalizing non-white groups.

Constructing racial hierarchies. The concept of "whiteness" served as a "linchpin" for systems of racial meaning, allowing European immigrants (like the Irish and Italians) to eventually assimilate into the dominant group by differentiating themselves from African Americans. This process, termed "racial triangulation" by Claire Jean Kim, involved:

• Valorization: Dominant whites valorizing one subordinate group (e.g., Asians) relative to another (e.g., Blacks).
• Civic ostracism: Simultaneously constructing the favored subordinate group as "immutably foreign and unassimilable."
  This complex dynamic ensured that while some groups could become "white," the fundamental black-white racial dichotomy remained, with African Americans consistently at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Towards a genuinely diverse democracy. Recognizing the historical construction and political consequences of "whiteness" is crucial for understanding contemporary debates about identity and equality. Scholars like Ian Haney Lopez argue that "only the complete disassembly of Whiteness will allow the dismantlement of the racial systems of meaning" and the emergence of a truly diverse democracy. This requires a shift from a narrow, Anglo-Saxon-biased view of American identity to one that genuinely integrates the "multiple traditions" of all groups, acknowledging their contributions and confronting the legacies of historical exclusion. The challenge is to foster a national identity that is both unified and respectful of the profound diversity forged through centuries of complex interactions, rather than through imposed conformity.