By: Shyam K. Sriram and Madalynn R. Falletta, Contributors
One of the most disappointing developments in American politics lately has been the politicization and weaponization of immigration. While questions about immigrants, legality and inclusion have been part of our history since the 18th century – look up the 1798 Alien Sedition Acts – we’ve seen a radical shift in public acceptance, not only immigrants, but also people seeking asylum in the United States. Immigration has and will continue to make our country better, but that also requires a change in attitude where these New Americans are preemptively regarded as an addition not subtraction.
Americans have forgotten it was only 60 years ago that immigration policy fundamentally changed with the ending of the historic quota system. The posthumous architect of that law was John F. Kennedy, our thirty-fifth president. The history of this legislation dates back to the 1950s and Congress’ attempts to pass the McCarran-Walter Act. President Truman vetoed the original bill, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which reinforced the quota system that was put into place in the 1920s, but added slightly to it. The number of immigrants per country increased and there were now quotas on immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as all Asian countries – though only a third of the allotments were open to Asian immigrants.
Cold War-era fears about the spread of communism found their way into the legislation. The act also made it more difficult for immigrants to be accepted into the country; there were now more restrictions on who was and was not eligible for a visa, which allegedly served to keep any threat of communism out of the country, according to the work of Alicia J. Campi.
President Truman vetoed this bill because of its discriminatory nature; he felt that having such a disproportionate number of visas allotted in each region was not only offensive to the citizens of America who share those ethnicities but also discriminatory in the sense that America would essentially be deeming Northern and Western Europeans superior to all others.
Congress overrode President Truman’s veto with a 278-113 vote in the House of Representatives and a 57-26 vote in the Senate, based on roll call records from the 82nd Congress. 84% of Republicans supported the veto override, whereas only 47% of Democrats voted the same. One of the Democratic representatives who voted against the bill was John F. Kennedy, who represented Massachusetts’ 11th district.
Throughout JFK’s later career in the Senate and carrying into his presidency, he became the foremost proponent of immigration reform with the goal of abolishing our quota system. Kennedy, who came from an Irish background and was the great-grandson of Irish immigrants, believed America to be a nation of immigrants. He looked to himself as an example for the kind of life other immigrant families could attain if given the opportunity to come to America.
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act into law, ending the country-quota system of immigration that had been a fixture of American immigration policy since the 19th century. At its signing ceremony on Oct. 3, 1965, Johnson said,
“This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country--to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit--will be the first that are admitted to this land.”
The original version of the law was drafted by President John F. Kennedy and would have been a part of his legacy until the November 1963 assassination altered history. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as it is widely known, “transformed the ethnic and racial makeup of the United States. We live in a country that looks a lot different today … largely because of the law,” wrote Geraldo L. Cadava.
However, not all members of Congress were on board, just as they had been during the previous decade’s rancor about altering the system of restrictionist immigration; conservative senators presumed that by emphasizing a rule that favored allowing immigrants to join families already in the U.S., more Europeans would come to the U.S. But, according to Tom Gjelten, “the scheme backfired. What Feighan and his allies did not recognize was that the motivation of Europeans to move to the United States was diminishing, while the urge to migrate was growing in Asia, Africa and other non-European countries.”
Patriotism can be understood in many ways, but it is fundamentally different from nationalism. That demarcation, however, is understood by very few Americans who presume that only some Americans should succeed at the cost of others. We reject calls of nationalism and nativism, and support a vision of the United States predicated on looking for the best in all – not one that reduces a complicated issue to the absurd idea of good versus bad immigrants. We support the vision of the late President John F. Kennedy who continues to inspire, 61 years after his cruel death, and believe that the best of America is still to come.
SHYAM K. SRIRAM is an assistant professor and program director in the Department of Political Science. His email is srirams@canisius.edu
MADALYNN R. FALLETTA is a senior majoring in political science. Her email is fallettm@canisius.edu
Commentaires