Our Anti-Immigrant Racism Is Rooted in History
by Sonali Kolhatkar
When actor Sean Penn asked, “Who gave this son of a bitch a green card?” in reference to Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s winning the best-picture trophy at the 2015 Academy Awards, many came to Penn’s defense, saying it was just a joke between friends. But others didn’t take kindly to the actor’s tongue-in-cheek treatment of a serious issue that has affected millions of families. Iñárritu himself brushed off the criticism, saying he thought Penn’s joke was “hilarious.” But as author Daniel José Older tweeted, “Iñárritu’s reaction is irrelevant. I’m happy he’s not offended. Doesn’t change that the rest of us have to deal with racist bs.”
Indeed, the recent news that a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, has placed a hold on President Obama’s executive action on immigration underscores the precariousness of immigrant life. Just hours before applications were scheduled to be accepted, Judge Andrew Hanen blocked a program announced by Obama last year, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), that would have offered millions of undocumented people the chance to have temporary relief from deportation.
Twenty-five states are ready to sue the administration over the executive action, and according to one immigrant advocacy group, the suit was filed in Brownsville because, “The Judge has a history of opining well beyond the scope of his jurisdiction, and an anti-immigration bent.” The suit was likely written by notorious anti-immigrant activist and Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who warned hysterically that DAPA would mean “all of these illegal aliens will be eligible to feed at the trough filled by hard-working American people.”
Meanwhile, Republicans are desperately throwing up legislative roadblocks to DAPA by holding hostage funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
The political and cultural marginalization of undocumented immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, has a long and lurid background in the United States. A recent Op-Ed in the New York Times highlighted the little-known history of lynchings of Mexicans. According to the authors, William Carrigan and Clive Webb, thousands of Mexicans were reportedly lynched in the late 1800s to early 1900s, in numbers second only to those of African-Americans.
Carrigan is a history professor at Rowan University and author of “Forgotten Dead: Mob Violence Against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928.” In an interview on “Uprising” about the lynchings, he explained the fluid nature of Latino citizenship historically, saying, “in the middle of the 19th century, all of the individuals [who were eventually lynched] would have been Mexican citizens at one point, but then many became US citizens after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.” Carrigan pointed out that most of the victims were poor laborers and that “racism and prejudice” were “critical factors.”
He cited a macabre incident in 1873 in Corpus Christi, Texas, in which seven Mexican shepherds were killed, their bodies found hanging from a tree. The goal of such incidents of historical mob violence against Mexicans, according to Carrigan, “was to intimidate Mexicans into abandoning South Texas, returning to Mexico.”
Carrigan maintained that understanding the violence of U.S. history is “important for our ongoing civic debate.” He explained, “Mexicans and white Americans don’t remember the past in the same way, and this makes conversation and dialogue about current politics very tricky. Whites are largely unaware of this violence against Mexicans and don’t understand when Mexicans put modern-day anti-Mexican nativism and violence into this historical context.”
But the violence continues today. Just as the historical lynching of Mexicans was second to that of African-Americans, today Latinos are seemingly killed by police violence in numbers rivaled only by those of black victims. While the federal government does not track police killings by race, some statistics are available, such as this chart of New York Police Department injuries and killings broken down by victims’ race. An undocumented Mexican immigrant farmworker named Antonio Zambrano-Montes in Pasco, Wash., and a 17-year-old queer Latina, Jessie Hernández, in Denver, Colo., are just the latest victims on a growing list of Latinos killed by police.
While Mexicans are no longer lynched—at least in the traditional sense—the contemporary goal of anti-immigrant conservatives has its echoes in past attempts to drive them back over the border. In 2012, during a presidential primary debate, Republican candidate Mitt Romney openly explained that the answer to the problem of immigration is “self-deportation,” which he characterized as what should happen when “people decide that they’re better off going home because they can’t work here, because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.” It turned out Romney had received advice on his immigration policies from none other than Kobach, the purported author of the current federal lawsuit against Obama’s DAPA program.
Of course, Obama himself is no friend to immigrants and has well earned the epithet of “deporter in chief.” Under the president’s harsh immigrant detention and deportation policies, those who are caught in an enforcement dragnet are “Warehoused and Forgotten,” as the title of this ACLU report on immigrant detention centers aptly describes.
Just days ago, thousands of undocumented immigrants at a detention facility in Raymondville, Texas, rioted over lack of medical care. The Willacy County Correctional Center is a privately run prison nicknamed “Ritmo” for its resemblance to conditions at the notorious U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay. Prisoners were being housed in large Kevlar tents where they were exposed to weather, insects and constant sewage problems. They experienced sexual abuse, physical assaults and more. It is no wonder they rioted and left the detention center in ruins. It is the third time that a privately run prison housing immigrants has faced an uprising.
It is fascinating to hear views from inside Mexico of how the U.S. treats Latinos and immigrants. Alejandro Solalinde is a well-known Mexican Catholic priest and human rights activist. Deeply moved by the brutal treatment of Central American migrants traveling through Mexico in an attempt to get to the U.S., Solalinde founded Hermanos en el Camino, a shelter in Mexico that provides migrants with humanitarian aid and education. During a visit he made to the U.S., I spoke with him about conservative anti-immigrant attitudes. He said plainly, “Immigrants are not a threat. They are not terrorists. They’re a great opportunity for the U.S. Immigrants are very intelligent. They have a great cultural and spiritual richness to share with everybody.”
When asked why conservatives continue to vilify immigrants, Solalinde said he understood that at its heart, anti-immigrant sentiment is rooted in a deep existential fear of the “other.” Essentially, the U.S. has had “waves and waves of immigration from all over the world, and little by little the U.S. has integrated them. What happens with the Latinos is that it’s a different plate to digest.” He clarified that “it’s not the same thing to cross the ocean, or come from Asia, as it is to be on the other side of the border ... their culture is a part of them, and they’re not going to ever fully assimilate. But they’re going to form new cultures. So people fear them more because there are more of them.”
Our society has targeted immigrants, and by extension Latinos in general, through mob violence and lynchings, criminalization of their legal status, racist bigotry, cultural oppression and police violence. Solalinde opined, “You don’t have to kill an immigrant with a bullet. You also kill an immigrant with discrimination, with injustice, to not recognize them, to deny them citizenship. They’re human beings.”
© 2015 TruthDig
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host and executive producer of Uprising, a daily radio program at KPFK Pacifica Radio, soon to be on Free Speech TV (click here for the campaign to televise Uprising). She is also the Director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a US-based non-profit that supports women's rights activists in Afghanistan and co-author of "Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence."
Ever since the first Asians arrived in America, there has been anti-Asian racism. This includes prejudice and acts of discrimination. For more than 200 years, Asian Americans have been denied equal rights, subjected to harassment and hostility, had their rights revoked and imprisoned for no justifiable reason, physically attacked, and murdered.
Anti-Asian Racism & Violence
Welcome to America?
by RACHEL STEINHARDT
With immigration policy the hottest of hot button issues in America, is it possible to transform the debate? Only by engaging with each other at a much deeper level to create a collective vision of the future.
How politicians and the media made us hate immigrants
by CHITRA NAGARAJAN
Politicians and the press are locked in a cycle of increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric, presented as 'uncomfortable truth'. Yet the problem is not immigration but socio-economic inequality. Poverty and exclusion are faced by working class people of all backgrounds.
America’s Long History of Immigrant Scaremongering
Conservatives claim that the young immigrants crossing the border are diseased and pose a dangerous public health risk. It’s a sad American tradition.
By Jamelle Bouie
Since last October, the United States has caught tens of thousands of children crossing the border with Mexico, most fleeing violence in Central America. Thousands continue to come into the country, and President Obama has called the influx an “urgent humanitarian situation,” asking Congress for $3.7 billion in funding to deal with the children and families that have arrived.
Complicating the problem are growing protests against the immigrants. “I’m protesting the invasion of the United States by people of foreign countries,” said one person at a recent demonstration in Oracle, Arizona. “This is about the sovereignty of our nation.” And at a similar one in Murietta, California, demonstrators held signs saying “illegals out!” and called for the U.S. government to “stop illegal immigration.”
But for as much as this anger is organic, growing from fear and anxiety, it’s also true that conservative media figures have stoked tensions with wild and dishonest rhetoric on the supposed threat of new arrivals. “Dengue fever, 50 to 100 million new cases a year of dengue fever worldwide. In Mexico, it is endemic. It’s a terrible disease, for anyone that’s had it,” said Fox News host Marc Siegel, who continued with a warning. “There’s no effective treatment of it. It’s now emerging in Texas because of the immigration crisis.” Likewise, on her radio show, Laura Ingraham declared, “The government spreads the illegal immigrants across the country, and the disease is spread across the country.”
Republican politicians have joined in as well. “Reports of illegal immigrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and tuberculosis are particularly concerning,” wrote Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey in a recent letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His colleague, Texas Rep. Randy Weber, sounded a similar note in an interview with conservative pundit Frank Gaffney: “I heard on the radio this morning that there have been two confirmed cases of TB—tuberculosis—and either one or two confirmed cases of swine flu, H1N1. … We’re thinking these are diseases that we have eradicated in our country and our population isn’t ready for this, so for this to break out to be a pandemic would be unbelievable.” And Rep. Louie Gohmert—no stranger to the offensive outburst--told conservative publication Newsmax that “we don’t know what diseases they’re bringing in.”
“Asians were portrayed as feeble and infested with hookworm, Mexicans as lousy, and eastern European Jews as vulnerable to trachoma ...”
Scholars Howard Markel and Alexandra Minna Stern
But we do, and the reality is nowhere close to dire: While a handful of reports suggest there are incoming children with illnesses like measles and tuberculosis, the vast majority of these minors are healthy and vaccinated. Moreover, according to the Department of Homeland Security, border agents are required to screen “all incoming detainees to screen for any symptoms of contagious diseases of possible public health concern.” In short, the odds that migrant children would cause a general infection of anything are slim to none, right-wing claims notwithstanding.
These facts are easy to find, but it’s not a surprise that immigration opponents would claim otherwise. For as long as there have been immigrants to the United States, there has been scaremongering about their alleged disease and uncleanliness. What we’re hearing now, put simply, is an update on an old script.
“On the morning of 19 May 1900,” writes American University professor Alan M. Kraut in an essay titled “Foreign Bodies: The Perennial Negotiation over Health and Culture in a Nation of Immigrants,” “the Chinese community of San Francisco found itself under siege in the name of state and municipal security. It was not fear of bombs or terrorist attack that inspired officials to commit a wholesale violation of civil liberties that morning; it was fear of disease, specifically bubonic plague.”
That wasn’t the first quarantine of San Francisco’s Chinatown, and it wouldn’t be the last. Nor was it a surprise—local authorities long regarded Chinese immigrants as a threat to public health, a manifestation of long-standing nativist fears. To wit, notes Kraut, “The Irish were charged with bringing cholera to the United States in 1832. Later the Italians were stigmatized for polio. Tuberculosis was called the ‘Jewish disease.’ ” The entire discourse of 19th- and early 20th-century politics was saturated with attacks on immigrants as diseased intruders to the body politic. Indeed, this dialogue culminated, in 1891, to Congress, with revision of the 1882 Immigration Act to exclude “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” from entry into the United States.
Protesters opposing the arrival of buses carrying undocumented migrants for processing at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station in California.Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
“Asians were portrayed as feeble and infested with hookworm, Mexicans as lousy, and eastern European Jews as vulnerable to trachoma, tuberculosis, and—a favorite ‘wastebasket’ diagnosis of nativists in the early 1900s—‘poor physique,’ ” write scholars Howard Markel and Alexandra Minna Stern in a 2002 paper on “the persistent association of immigrants and disease in American society.”
Vivid examples of this association aren’t hard to find. “[E]very ship from China brings hundreds of these syphilitic and leprous heathens,” writes one editor in an issue of Medico-Literary Journal. Likewise, wrote one columnist in an Oct. 3, 1907 edition of the Princeton Union, “[German immigrants] produce large and swarming hives of children who grow up dirty, ignorant, depraved, and utterly unfit for American citizenship.” And in a Dec. 1, 1906 edition of the Deseret Evening News, one writer complained of “runners” in southern and eastern Europe who “tell fairy tales about the prosperity of the many immigrants now in America and the opportunities we offer to aliens. It is by such means that paupers and diseased persons are induced to make the journey, only to find that they are shipped back upon landing.”
Mass participation in World War II changed American perspectives of European immigrants, and later, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ended national quotas and opened the doors to a huge numbers of immigrants from around the world. Still, the link between immigration and disease has persisted through the 20thcentury and into the 21st.
In the 1980s, for example, the influx of Haitian refugees merged with the AIDS crisis to produce a new wave of anti-immigrant discrimination. “When AIDS appeared suddenly in the 1980s,” writes Markel and Stern, “it was quickly conflated with deviant sexuality and several minority groups, ranging from gays and intravenous drug abusers to Haitians and Africans.” In 1983, the appearance of HIV among several Haitian detainees led the CDC to add the group to its list of “recognized vectors” for the virus, and in 1990—acting on potent AIDS stereotypes—it banned all Haitians from donating blood in the United States. What’s more, that same year, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began to detain and quarantine HIV-positive immigrants at the U.S. base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
And in 1993, echoing earlier language against “paupers and diseased person,” Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles introduced a bill prohibiting the entry of all HIV-positive immigrants on economic grounds, arguing that—if we didn’t—“it will almost be like an invitation for many people who carry this dreadful, deadly disease, to come into the country because we do have quality health care in this country … and jeopardize the lives of countless Americans and will cost U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars.”
Beyond the present situation, the most recent attacks on immigrants as carriers of disease came during the Bush administration. In 2005, an episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight falsely asserted, “We have some enormous problems with horrendous diseases that are being brought into America by illegal aliens,” including 7,000 cases of leprosy in the past three years. On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly agreed that immigrants were crossing the border with “tuberculosis, syphillis, and leprosy,” and in 2006, Pat Buchanan claimed “illegal aliens” were responsible for bedbug infestations in “26 states.” In reality, health officials attribute the growth in bedbugs to “widespread use of baits instead of insecticide sprays” for pest control.
Today, anti-immigrant protesters hold signs asking Washington to “Save our children from diseases,” while right-wing lawmakers fret about disease screening and spread fears of infection and contamination. In doing so, both draw from a long history of ugly nativism and prejudice dressed as concern for public health. And you don’t have to be a liberal, or support immigration reform, to see that it’s a disgrace.
JAMELLE BOUIE Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.
Hatred of immigrants has a long history
By A. James Rudin | Religion News Service
Although immigration created our nation, prejudice and discrimination have always dogged those yearning to breathe free.
Christopher Columbus, the first European “immigrant,” represented a repressive Spanish monarchy that expelled its Jews in 1492 and its Muslims between 1609 and 1614. Both events were scrubbed from the heroic Columbus narrative. Instead, we were taught the brave explorer “discovered” America. In reality, he opened the region to immigrant conquistadors who looted, raped and killed for the imperial glory and financial benefit of Spain.
In 1607, English immigrants established Jamestown in what was called the “New World.” It wasn’t “new,” since many diverse tribes already lived here who were inaccurately called “Indians.” Over time, they lost most of their lands, and often their lives.
A dozen years after Jamestown, new immigrants arrived: Africans in chains as human slaves whose white owners treated them as profitable property, an evil system that continued for nearly 250 years.
With a vast continent to develop, America required cheap immigrant labor. In return, newcomers to the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries gained religious and political liberty, public education, individual rights and economic opportunities. That is why millions of Irish, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Jews and other immigrants wept in joy when they first saw the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor.
But the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” words written by Emma Lazarus, an American Jewish poet, and inscribed on the statue’s pedestal, frequently confronted severe prejudice and discrimination. Asian immigrants, or “the Yellow Peril” as bigots called them, were especially despised.
In 1924, anti-immigrant fever peaked when Congress enacted restrictive legislation that banned Asians from entering the United States and limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
The bill’s co sponsor, U.S. Rep. Albert Johnson, R-Wash., said the law would block “a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions ... “ from entering America. Sen. David Reed, R-Pa., the other co-sponsor, represented “those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard — that is, the people who were born here.” Southern and Eastern Europeans (many of them Catholics and Jews), he believed, “arrive sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.”
Stephen Wise, the most prominent rabbi of the era, employed sarcasm to express his opposition:
“ ... Were Jesus and his twelve disciples on earth today, they would have to cast lots as to which one of them would have the privilege of coming to the United States under the Johnson-Reed bill quota system.”
After Kristallnacht’s “Night of Broken Glass” attacks against Jews in 1938, Sen. Robert Wagner, D-N.Y., and Rep. Edith Nourse Rogers, R-Mass., co-sponsored a bill permitting 20,000 German Jewish children, a modest number, to enter the U.S. as non quota immigrants.
Eleanor Roosevelt unsuccessfully urged her husband, Franklin, the president, to support the bipartisan bill, but anti-Semites and isolationists attacked the legislation along with the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the bill died in committee.
FDR’s cousin Laura Delano Houghteling, whose husband was the U.S. commissioner for immigration and naturalization, opposed the Wagner-Rogers legislation, declaring: “Twenty thousand charming (Jewish) children would all too soon grow into 20,000 ugly adults.”
Love-Hate Relationship with Immigrants
One college president questions the renewed animosity toward this group.
By: MICHAEL MACDOWELL
With a divisive issue like immigration, the cartoon character Pogo perhaps summarized it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us.'' Today, even some anthropologists suggest Native Americans immigrated here and displaced the then-current indigenous people. The point is simple: All Americans came from somewhere else-whether voluntarily or involuntarily. At one time, we were all immigrants.
Why then is there a renewed animosity toward immigrants? There's the legal issue, of course: Those who enter the country illegally avoid some taxes while reaping some social service safety net benefits, like education. But these individuals have fewer protections than those who legally enter the workforce. Even legal immigrants cost the country more than they initially contribute to it.
A case can certainly be made against illegal immigration. But why is it suddenly an issue today? Former President Ronald Reagan opened amnesty to all illegal immigrants as late as 1986. The vast majority of Americans did not object.
THE PER-CAPITA INCOME CONNECTION
Historic trends may help to explain the current animosity. It appears that when Americans believe their per-capita income is growing, there are relatively few negative feelings toward recent immigrants. Conversely, when income is not growing, Americans shun immigrants.
The 1840s recessions resulted in strict immigration restrictions. Post-Civil War, when the national economy was booming, restrictions were lifted and immigration was encouraged.
During the 1890s and early 1900s panics, strict immigration limitations were enacted. They were liberalized during the 1920s economic boom.
The Great Depression produced strict limitations on immigration again. But post-World-War-II's economic boom witnessed a much more open policy.
The economically lethargic 1970s saw another wave of restrictive policies. By the mid-1980s, the situation again reversed itself. In 2000, Pat Buchanan was the only anti-immigrant candidate. He lost so badly, he changed parties.
Americans close the door to immigration when they feel their own economic status is in peril.
These circumstances may be an oversimplification of historical periods. But the love-hate relationship with immigrants stems more from feelings of economic well-being than it does from fear of crime or public support for those who pay fewer taxes than citizens do. Americans close the door to immigration when they feel their own economic status is in peril-and welcome immigrants when full employment means entry-level workers are needed.
Americans are hardly alone in these on-again, off-again immigration attitudes. West Germany encouraged thousands of Turkish immigrants during the boom years of the 1980s. It reversed those policies after reunification forced limited resources to be shared with East Germans, which resulted in higher taxes and, hence, less personal income for West Germans.
In All Fairness
In The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (Random House, 2005), Harvard professor Ben Friedman explores in depth the changing public opinion for and against immigration. He points out that a country's economic well-being (an increase in personal income) creates a more tolerant and fair society. By "fair," he means having both the resources and the inclination to help those in need. Economic growth stimulates acceptance and tolerance.
Pope Francis spoke out against anti-immigrant hatred this weekend, challenging Europeans who are quick to demonize newcomers and echoing U.S. bishops calling for compassionate action on immigration reform in America.
Speaking on Sunday after a week of anti-immigration protests and clashes between native Italians and North African refugees in Rome, Francis told an assembled crowd in St. Peter’s Square that Christians should respond to the growing “social emergency” in the region with civil discussion.
“The important thing is to not give into the temptation to confrontation … [and also] to reject all violence,” he said. “It is possible to dialogue, to listen to one another, to make plans together, and in this way to overcome suspicion and prejudice, and to build a coexistence that is ever more secure, peaceful, and inclusive.”
Francis went on to encourage his fellow Catholics to pursue empathetic solutions to immigration struggles so that “there might not be confrontation, but encounter,” and suggested the faithful seek dialogue with local officials wherever possible — including “in the parish hall.”
Francis’ comments were primarily geared towards Italian citizens, but his statements reflected a long history of advocating on behalf of immigrants more globally — including those within the United States. Francis’ first trip outside the Vatican was to confront immigration issues on the nearby island of Lampedusa, for example, and he declared in July that the recent surge of unaccompanied Central American children fleeing to the United States to escape gang violence should be “welcomed and protected.”
The pontiff’s pro-immigrant stance — which is itself rooted in a long history of Catholic support for immigrants — is also increasingly reflected in the work and political advocacy of American bishops. Prominent Catholic clergy were deeply involved in last year’s debate over a possible comprehensive immigration reform bill, and many followed Francis’ lead this summer by speaking up for unaccompanied minors from Central America. More recently, Seattle Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, chairman of the migration committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, effectively endorsed a rumored forthcoming executive action from President Barack Obama that could provide legal documents for millions of immigrants, saying in a press conference last week, “it would be derelict not to support administrative actions … which would provide immigrants and their families legal protection.”
Other bishops have also spoken out in support of the President acting alone on immigration, with Arizona Bishop Gerald Kicanas telling Crux that “It may be necessary for the president to step up and to act in a way that addresses the needs of families.” In addition, Elizondo also teamed up with Bishop Kevin Vann, chair of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, to quietly send a letter in September to Jeh Johnson, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, addressing immigration issues. The letter outlined specific strategies for helping immigrants and asked the secretary to make moves with or without the aid of Congress.
“[W]e write to urge you to use your authority to protect undocumented individuals and families as soon as possible, within the limits of your executive authority,” the letter read. “With immigration reform legislation stalled in Congress, our nation can no longer wait to end the suffering of family separation caused by our broken immigration system.”
A year later, State Department official Breckinridge Long was equally clear about blocking the entry of Jewish refugees into America:
“ ... We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the
Looking back upon the broad swath of immigration in this country, it's relatively easy to see the inevitable relationship between economic well-being and tolerance of new arrivals. This broad-based understanding may not help us address the immediate and sensitive issues of illegal immigrants today. But the realization will remind all of us that this country of immigrants cannot survive without the work ethic, values, and often entrepreneurial spirit that our newest Americans have traditionally brought with them.
Michael A. MacDowell is president of College Misericordia in Dallas, Pa.
By 1940, an upset Eleanor Roosevelt learned of Long’s memo and his bureaucratic plans to block Jewish immigration. She urged her husband to meet with Long and “get this cleared up quickly.” But the First Lady was again unsuccessful.
Long was able to set up “obstacles” for Jews and others who applied for immigrant status. Between 1933 and 1943 there were more than 400,000 unfilled entry visas for people living in Nazi-controlled Europe.
The hatred of current immigrants by the descendants of earlier immigrants remains a well-documented and shameful reality of American history.