 |
 |
Kevin R. Johnson’s The “Huddled Masses Myth”: Immigration and Civil Rights is a fascinating and important comment on the intersection of race and the law in the United States. Johnson’s expressed intent is to write his book for a general audience, and for the most part, he succeeds. The book is divided into eight chapters. Chapter One discusses immigration and civil rights in the United States. The common theme running from Chapter Two through Chapter Five is the exclusion and deportation of racial minorities, political undesirables, the poor, and criminals. Chapter Six analyzes the marginalization of women under U.S. immigration and nationality laws. Chapter Seven examines the exclusion and deportation of lesbians and gay men. The book closes with Johnson’s perspective on the future of immigration and civil rights in this county.
In an almost clichéd statement, Johnson emphasizes that the United States accepts many more immigrants than most nations. Other facets of U.S. immigration history, however, are a source of shame for those who are committed to equality under the law. Contrary to popular beliefs, a review of American history reveals a lack of openness to, and acceptance of, the “huddled masses,” the “tired,” or the “poor.” This is the central premise of Huddled Masses: U.S. immigration laws and their enforcement have barred racial minorities, political dissidents, the poor, actual and alleged criminals, and gay men and lesbians from this country—often pursuant to procedures that are difficult, if not impossible, to square with the notion of due process of law.
Johnson starts by discussing a lengthy history of excluding and deporting the immigrant poor and disadvantaged minorities. His survey begins by examining restrictions that limited the immigration of potential benefit recipients. He then reviews the efforts of federal, state, and local governments to “exclude those categories of immigrants who share common characteristics with groups that are disfavored in this country.” He cites a few well-known examples: the segregation of African American and white children in schools, the genocide of Native American peoples, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the deportation of Mexican Americans (and their American-born children) during the Great Depression. Johnson acknowledges that episodes of volatile xenophobic attacks on aliens are a cyclical matter, and will likely continue, along with popular stereotypes about “foreigners.” He argues that immigrant status, like race, is an immutable characteristic. “The law creates ‘alien’ as outsiders who are allocated few political and legal rights. Moreover, the legal construction of ‘aliens’ not only affects the general public view of non-citizens but also contributes to their harsh treatment.”
Johnson’s treatment of Asian American issues represents a major contribution to immigration literature. Johnson contends that unequal treatment of foreigners was reflected in the Chinese exclusionary laws and was reincar-
*** Top of Page 294 ***
nated in the laws excluding Indochinese refugees during the late 1970s. Johnson argues that these are part of the war on non-citizens on the basis of their race, not their immigration status. Another particular strength of the book is Johnson’s comparisons between the experiences of Asians and African Americans. The treatment of African Americans and other racial minorities, including Asians, can be traced back to nineteenth century constitutional jurisprudence and historical events that pitted ethnic/racial groups against one another.
Reminding the reader of the book’s wide analytical scope are the later chapters regarding gender and sexual identity issues in the immigration context. In Chapter Six, Johnson provides an insightful discussion of the treatment of women in U.S. immigration history. In doing so, he dispels the persistent stereotype of immigration as a male phenomenon. Women have a long-documented history of immigration to the United States. Unfortunately, treatment by the U.S. has been inequitable and often harsh. For example, Johnson identifies how women were treated as extensions of their spouses without any independent legal identity. Here, he makes two related points: (1) nationality laws permitted women to be stripped of their U.S. citizenship upon marriage to an immigrant, since a woman’s citizenship was treated as contingent on the nationality of her spouse; and (2) immigrant women of color were exploited in the low-wage domestic labor market. “Single immigrant women have often presumed to be likely to become public charges . . . women’s ability to immigrate has often turned almost exclusively on their spouses’ income, skills, and ability to immigrate.”
In Chapter Eight, Johnson details the exclusion of lesbians and gay men. Homosexuals were legally barred from immigrating to the United States from 1953 until 1990. He states that “[o]ver and over, the Supreme Court rejected several constitutional challenges to the classification of homosexuals attempting to enter this county as ‘psychopathic personalities,’ leading lives of ‘sexual deviation.’” Congress finally repealed homosexual exclusion laws in response to political activism and social awareness of the rights of lesbians and gay men.
On balance, Huddled Masses is well-written and often provocative. Johnson provides a valuable dialogue and a solid set of information about the privileges of being an American and the historical roots and contemporary sustenance of anti-immigration fervor. In particular, Kevin Johnson’s book provides an important analysis for Critical Race scholars to weave into intricate mosaics of the relationship(s) between civil rights and immigration. The interested reader and scholar will not be disappointed by Johnson’s in-depth study.
—Harvey Gee
HLSHRJ@law.harvard.edu
This file was last modified: Wednesday, 03-Aug-2005 10:51:36 EDT