2

Well you can easily find out certain immigration policies which U.S. has deployed in the past to keep the certain minorities out like -The Chinese exclusion act of 1882 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act or the Jhonson-Reed act (which was passed after WW1 ,even when Japan was an ally in WW1) - https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act . So why did U.S. politicians deploy such measures to beleaguere certain minorities when it comes to immigration ? Were U.S. politicians racist towards immigration policies in past ? If yes , then why people are outraged towards the current immigration reforms (Muslim ban)

4
  • 2
    U.S. immigration policy has not been anything like consistent over the last century. It has varied greatly with something on the order of five fairly extreme policy shifts over that time period.
    – ohwilleke
    Mar 14 '18 at 1:44
  • 1
    Considering Obama had almost the same policy, the answer to your last question is "TDS"
    – user4012
    Mar 14 '18 at 12:25
  • POssible duplicate: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10440/…
    – user4012
    Mar 14 '18 at 12:28
  • @user4012 the thing that you're calling "Obama's policy" was actually a statute enacted by congress, and it was not at all similar to Trump's executive order other than affecting nationals of some of the same countries.
    – phoog
    Jun 10 at 5:29
-3

So why did U.S. politicians deploy such measures [..] ?

In order to have a larger proportion of those immigrants that were expected to better integrate, contribute more, and cause less trouble.

Throughout history, immigration usually was allowed when it seemed to benefit the receiving party, and disallowed when it didn't seem to yield any benefit.

Immigration restrictions are the common case throughout history. If an immigrant couldn't work and didn't have money, said immigrant usually ended up either imprisoned - for burglary - or exiled (or worse).

If yes , then why people are outraged towards the current immigration reforms (Muslim ban)

Political reasons: "The Other Party supports those reforms, so let's oppose it in an attempt to win votes."

5
  • 3
    "In order to have a larger proportion of those immigrants that were expected to better integrate, contribute more, and cause less trouble." This is hardly a reasoning from hundred years ago, merely a very current interpretation of immigration. Integration as a concept is hardly older than roughly two decades. Note that many of the immigrants throughout the American history were outcasts for religious reasons in their home coutnries; the idea of immigration as a global competition for the best performers while blocking the rest is a 21st century thing (or maybe late 20th century).
    – Thern
    Mar 14 '18 at 10:57
  • @Nebr "Integrate" is a very old concept. The Romans already allowed foreigners to integrate through joining their army, contributing to the Roman cause in the process.
    – Sjoerd
    Mar 14 '18 at 20:16
  • But it is very questionable if they really did it for integration purposes, or for more pragmatic reasons (Rome itself was simply unable to keep up armies to control a continent-sized imperium if not also using people from conquered regions), and the integration was a positive side-effect. I am not aware that there was a principal idea like "let them serve in the army to better integrate in our society" behind this. It rather seems to be the other way round ("if they want to be part of our society, let them prove their value on the battlefield first").
    – Thern
    Mar 15 '18 at 0:09
  • @Nebr Who care about what is the cause and what is the effect - one can't say which one is which anyway. Integration was the usual side-effect of a deal that benefited both sides. Integration was so common that nobody cared to name it explicitly.
    – Sjoerd
    Mar 15 '18 at 21:11
  • Well, the question was why such measurements were deployed, so in the frame of the question it is very well relevant if ideas of integration were the reason for politics or if they were simply a side-effect. And the explanation you gave is a 21st century reasoning which is irrelevant for politics from the late 19th century.
    – Thern
    Mar 16 '18 at 8:11

You must log in to answer this question.