8 Asians

What next?

• Subscribe to this feed
• Leave a comment

Other posts you may be interested in:

1. Howard Dean & the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Community in San Jose
2. Paul Fong, ‘Godfather’ of Silicon Valley’s Asian-American political community steps into spotlight
3. Boston Mayoral Candidate Sam Yoon Thanks Asian American Community, Still Needs You
4. Senator Daniel K. Inouye Spotlighted to Cut Billions
5. Legacy Anti-Asian American Ballot Initiative Fails in Florida

• joshbd
  "A national origins quota system was in place to mirror the largely white-ancestral makeup of the U.S."
  
  To be more specific and accurate, the national origins quota system was put into place not simply to mirror the white ancestral makeup, but to mirror the Northern and Western European makeup of the US. The major impetus for adopting the system, which was a de facto moratorium on immigration, was the large numbers of Eastern European and Southern European immigration in the early 20th century. It was specifically targeted at reducing as much as possible this S/E Euro immigration.
  
  As a Democrat, I appreciate all that Ted Kennedy did over his long career. But it's also important to remember what he actually said while championing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
  
  Kennedy and other supporters of the act not only claimed that the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but said that such a change was not desirable.
• johnklin
  Well, specific to Asian immigration, I don't know if 0.5% to 5% of the United States population would be considered an inundation that upset America's ethnic makeup. But you are right, immigration patterns did change. Additionally, within the Asian American community, there is a great immigration diversity from country of origin: Taiwan, China, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, India, etc.
  
  And as far as I know, there have not been a flood of African immigrants to the United States.
  
  At least with the most current debate on immigration reform, I think a lot of the hostility towards immigration is based on illegal immigration and the growth of Hispanics in the United States, which has now grown to 16% of the U.S. population
  
  Ironically, Republican President Ronald Reagan probably provided amnesty to the most number of illegal immigrants (in absolute numbers) by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, probably most disproportionally affecting the Hispanic population and having the biggest impact of "upsetting" the ethnic mix.
• joshbd
  Right. Relatively speaking Asian and African immigration hasn't been that great. The major change has been Hispanic immigration and the rise in the Hispanic population in the US.
  
  "Ironically, Republican President Ronald Reagan probably provided amnesty to the most number of illegal immigrants (in absolute numbers) by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, probably most disproportionally affecting the Hispanic population and having the biggest impact of "upsetting" the ethnic mix."
  
  This is true, though it was supposed to be a one time deal of providing amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, followed by more restrictive law and increased enforcement thereafter. So it was more the fact that half of the Act, the amnesty part, was implemented while the enforcement part following amnesty for the most part wasn't. It wasn't so much Reagan and his Act as it was providing amnesty while not really following through on the Act.
  
  Ultimately I think we have to give the credit to Kennedy and the Immigration Act in 1965 for laying the groundwork for the change and continuing change in the ethnic balance. Around the time of the act in 1965, the US was around 90% white and close to 10% black. Today it is around 66% white, with blacks and Hispanics around 13% and 15% respectively, and Asians at around 15%. And in roughly 30 years or so, whites will no longer be a majority and will be below 50% of the population, with Hispanics at around 30%, blacks at around 15%, and Asians at around 10%. This really wouldn't have been possible without the Immigration Act in 1965.
  
  The thing though about Kennedy's speech while championing the Act is that it seems he really didn't think the Act would change the ethnic balance, or he really believed that such a change was a bad thing, or he was lying and knew that it would lead to change but didn't want to admit it.
• Linda Chan
  Semantics aside, I'm glad that your family was able to stay & settle here!