Transcripts For CSPAN3 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration And Nati

Not a hearing room at first. And then in the 1970s, Senator Frank Church began to investigate problems with the cia and fbi. And this was goaliing to be the first investigation into the intelligence operations. The material they were handling was so secret that it had to be in a secure place. So this room was converted. A floor was built across. It was turned into offices for the Church Committee that was investigating the cia and the fbi. They had armed guards standing at each of the doors to make sure no one came in. Reporters thought it was interesting that the Church Committee was trying to break through secrecy, but they were surrounded by guards to keep these secrets in here. But the fact of the matter is, if the congress was going to investigate, they had to promise to maintain secrets. So this room was a hub for that information. Then, when the Church Committee led to the creation of the Permanent Committee on intelligence which still operates in the senate, this room became the Intelligence Committee back in those days. In the late 1970s and early 1980s. Until the Hart Building was opened in 1983, and the Intelligence Committee then moved over there. Then what do you do with a room of this size . At that time it was turned back into a hearing room. Its now sort of an allpurpose, multimedia room. Its been designed for the latest technology, special events, special hearings. There are all sorts of conferences. All sorts of events that take place in this space. So its carried on with the nature of the building being sort of an allpurpose building. This room is a room that has had lots of hard political events in here. But its also had a lot of social entertaining. Most of them are very pleasant and very forgettable occasions. One stands out in particular. And that was the 100th birthday of senator Strom Thurmond, of south carolina. Senator thurmond is the only United States senator to live to the age of 100 while he was serving in the senate, and of course the senate wanted to pay special tribute to him. So there was a large birthday festivity in here, which, in itself is a very nice occasion, and the then Senate Majority leader, trent lott came to pay homage to senator thurmond. And in his remarks, he was, as he said subsequently overly effusive. He praised senator thurmonds career in the senate, and then he recalled that in 1948, senator thurmond had run for president against president harry truman. I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president , we voted for him. Were proud of him. [ applause ] and if the rest of the country had followed our lied, we wouldnt have had all these problems over all these years, either. Which seems a relatively mild statement, except that senator lott forgot that senator thurmond ran as the segregationist candidate against president truman who had helped integrate the armed services. And, as a result, there was a huge a pressure within senator lotts party for him to step down as the leader of his party. And eventually, he did resign as majority leader of the senate as a result of this one statement made in this one room. And so its a reminder that just about everything that a politician says is probably ila going to be recorded and anal e analyzeda and held against them at one time or another, even at an occasion such as a 100th birthday party. Here you go, happy birthday, strom. Blow hard. [ applause ] i should also mention why its called the dirksen building. When the first Senate Office building opened, it was known as the Senate Office building. And it was known even more popularly by its acronym, which was the s. O. B. Then, when this building opened up, that building became the old s. O. B. And this building became the new s. O. B. And senators began to think that at that was inappropriate, that they should have a more formal title for t senator russell died and was known as a senators senator. He had Great Respect from all of his colleagues, regardless of their ideology, their party, so that building was named for Richard Russell who was a democrat. And for some balance, this building was named for a senator Everett Dirksen who had been the republican leader from 1959 to 19 1969 and who was quite a popular figure with tousled hair, a deep voice, a terrific orator in the old school style. He won an award just for reading patriotic sheet music and speeches with music playing in the background. It was a quite popular piece at the time. Down through the years, there have been men, brave, gallant men who have died that others might be free. And so dirksen, known at wizard of ooze, just as a popular person who actually represented a great spirit of bipartisanship. Because he was the minority leader in the senate with a very small minority. He usually operated with 35 to 3 36 senators on his side. But it was critical when it took twothirds to cut off a filibuster. So if they were going to stop a filibuster on civil rights, they needed Everett Dirksens support. The Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Once dirksen agreed to whatever the compromise was, then enough votes would come on board for the majority to prevail. And so Everett Dirksen, even though he was only the minority lieder was extremely important leader at this time, and it seemed fitting to name this building after him. Senator dirksen liked to say that he was a man of principle, and one of his greatest principles was to maintain flexibility at all times. And that made him a very agile senator and a man who understood that you have to compromise in order to build consensus. In the United States senate, compromise is essential for passing any kind of legislation. Getting some kind of bipartisanship is important because rarely does a Majority Party have sufficient votes to be able to pass something entirely by itself. Always the majority leaders have got to persuade members of the minority to come on board. And always theres some kind of a coalition thats being built. So i think thats one of the reasons why the u. S. Senate wanted to commemorate senator dirksen by naming this second building after him. You can watch this or other american artifacts programs at any time by visiting our website, cspan. Org history. Wednesday night on American History tv on cspan 3, programs about the civil war. At 8 00 eastern, the 150th anniversary of robert e. Lees surrender at appomattox. We visit the anderson vil pri n prison. We talk to leslie gordon. The civil war at 8 00 eastern here on cspan 3. Thursday on cspan, christmas at the white house. First Lady Michelle obama speaks to troops and their families in the east room. A tour of the white House Holiday decorations and the annual National Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony. Christmas at the white house, Christmas Eve at 8 00 eastern on cspan. This holiday weekend, American History tv on cspan 3 has three days of featured programming, beginning friday evening at 6 30 eastern to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of president dwight david eisenhower, his granddaughters gather for a rare family discussion at Gettysburg College to talk about his military and political career as well as his relevance for 21st century americans. Then on saturday afternoon at 1 00, 60 years ago, rosa parks defied a city ordnance for blacks to leave their seats on a city bus to make room for white passengers. Her stand helped instigate the bus boycott as we hear from the attorney for rosa park and demonstrators. Then at 6 00, William Davis on the littlephoneknown aspects o ulysses s. Grant and robert e. Lee. And a 1965 Progress Report on nasas projects, including the manned Space Program and the mayriner fly by. All weekend and on holidays too, only on cspan 3. Up next on American History tv, a group of authors and historians talk about the legacy of the 1965 hartcellar act which changed immigration policy from a quota system to one that focussed on skills and family relationships with american citizens or residents. This event took place at the university of californias washington center. Its a little over an hour. [ applause ] thank you very much. Thanks for coming out. In california i really reflect whats happening in the sky. Its very scary. I like to introduce our tremendous panel, all very respected scholars. One of them even has the word distinguished in his title. He never laughed at my jokes. First, on the far, on left, matt garcia, the director of the school of historical, philosophical and religious studies at Arizona State university. Garcia was also the outreach director and coprimary director for an archive project for a humanities grant in 2008. Next to him is erica lee, erica lee is an american historian and awardwinning author and teaches history at the university of minnesota where she holds the rudolph j. Vicoli chair. And is the direct or of the research center. Her books include angel island and the making of asian america, a history. Next to her, a long time, im a huge admire irof richard alba, his most recent book is strangers no more. Cowritten with nancy phoner. In 2008, he received the award for the distension wished award of scholarship bestowed by the American Psychological association. And professor of asianamerican studies, u. S. Historian interested in questions of immigration, citizenship and nationalism and is the author of illegal aliens and the making of modern america and the lucky ones. Please welcome our distinguished panel. [ applause ] so, again, i just printed this out that october 3rd, 1965, Lyndon Johnson is on Liberty Island at a signing ceremony, and this is what he says in describing the hartcellar act of 1965. This bill he says we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power. Yet, it is still one of the most important acts of this congress and administration, for it does repair a very deep and painful flaw in the deep fabric of american justice. It corrects a cruel wrong in the conduct of the american nation. Fast forward. This bill says simply that from this day forth, those wishing to emigrate 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, strength, spirit are the first to be admitted to this land. The fairness of this standard is so selfevident, that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. The fact is for over four decades, the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted by the quota system. Under that system, the ability of new immigrants to conto america depended on the country of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply 70 of all immigrants. This is lbj . Families were kept apart because a husband or wife or a child had been born in the wrong place. Men of needed skill and talent were denied entrance because they came from southern or Eastern Europe or one of the developing continents. This system violated the basic principle of american democracy, the principle that values and rewards each person as a man. It is unamerican in the highest sense because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. Today with my signature this system is abolished. We can never again shatter the gate to the nation with the twin bear juries of privilege im going to cry our beautiful america was built with strangers. They have poured forth into an empty land, joining in one irresistible pie. Those who do come will come because of what they are and not because of the land from which they sprung. Stirring stuff. And i want to start with professor lee. And should i have cried . Could you give us a sense of the reality of that bill at that, on that day, on that signing and the rhetoric, the soaring rhetoric that i just raid. You absolutely should have cried. It was a stirring moment. And to set the theme, not only is he there with this grand desk on Liberty Island, but hes got Vice President hubert humphrey, lady bird johnson, Hubert Humphreys wife,ionson wife, t e home, momentous time. But i like how he downplays it. And i hope what well get to talk about in a little bit is what that actually means, why is he downplaying the momentous change that hes about to write into law . But i think what youre asking is what was the system before 1965. What are the deepened racial what was he referring to . The injustices that he sought to erase. Right, so what hes referring to are the National Origins quotas set in place in 1924, the places set in why germany ireland. The quota for germany was 51,000. The quota for italy was Something Like 3400. Deeply unfair, unequal system that privileged immigration from northern and western europe, disadvantaged immigration from southern and Eastern Europe but also bars almost every asian immigrant group. And, you know, we could go back to the 1880s to talk about those laws. So this is an explicitly discriminatory, racebased system that the law abolished. What were the Political Forces that led to this legislation . To the 65 . The 65. Well, the 1964 elections created a super majority in both houses of democrats. It was the largest democratic majority since the new doeal. So thats legislative, now, but what accounts for that super majority, that land slide, in fact, what it changed in the electoral map and the population was the rise of euroamerican ethnics, what we would call white ethnics, slavic americans, the people who worked in the factories. The children of the people who had come before the turn of the century. They were now a voting block. They were active members of the aflcio unions. They had to be reckoned with. And so for that reason, the second and Third Generation of the european immigrants, the jews and italians and hungarians, they saw the quotas as an insult to them. People from my country arent good enough to come here. What does that say about what you think of me . So it was part of this movement after world war ii of people of european descent feeling that they were not recognized and appreciated. So what johnson was referring to was a symbolism of telling these ethnic groups, youre as good as the pilgrims. And theres a lot about the structure of the law which think didnt think things would really change, which they were wrong about. But the politics really has to do with i think a changing dem graphic, and those children of the immigrants, they were the ones driving the movement for reform after world war ii. They worked on it all through the 50s, but its not until you have a change in the congress that they can actually pass it. Right. And as part of the civil rights agenda. Now richard, you wrote a book on italian americans. I did indeed. With this, again, with may suggesting an effort to be treated better, an effort to get more of their cousins and brethren into the country . Was it a symbolic act . Its a good question. Ive never looked at the history of italians in this, but given what happened, youd have to say that the impulse must have been more symbolic, because even though the act did away with these discriminatory quotas against various european groups, including italians, the resulting immigration of italians was really quite trivial. It was nothing like the immigration of italians that had been shut off in the 1920s when these National Quota systems were implemented. But was there an asian lobby component in this . Was it all eastern and southern european . The big coalitions that were operating in the 50s. I look at their archives, and its all jewish, protestant organizations, the greek americans, and there is one mexicanamerican, george i. Sanchez and out of a letterhead of 100 people. And they were really token members because they dont have the same electoral strength or political voice that the ethnics have. That comes now, right . Understood, but in a variety of papers i raid on the subject there was this idea that this le. So that was never the intechbts . No, they promised people in congress, dont worry, the asians wont come. They said dont worry, theyre not going to come. I do think that were at a major civil rights moment in American History. Exactly. And that was not an irrelevant consideration. That this was part of cleaning up american law to remove, you know, what remained of a kind of racist systems embedded in legislation. I just wanted to quote emmanuel seller. He told the house, quote, since the people of africa and asia have very few relatives here comparatively few could emigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the u. S. So he was assuring. Matt, as an expert on a lot of things, but including labor and mexican migration, what was happening around the early to mid 60s regarding the flow of mexicans northward and the stat us of the Bracero Program . It was a Senator Frank Church<\/a> began to investigate problems with the cia and fbi. And this was goaliing to be the first investigation into the intelligence operations. The material they were handling was so secret that it had to be in a secure place. So this room was converted. A floor was built across. It was turned into offices for the Church Committee<\/a> that was investigating the cia and the fbi. They had armed guards standing at each of the doors to make sure no one came in. Reporters thought it was interesting that the Church Committee<\/a> was trying to break through secrecy, but they were surrounded by guards to keep these secrets in here. But the fact of the matter is, if the congress was going to investigate, they had to promise to maintain secrets. So this room was a hub for that information. Then, when the Church Committee<\/a> led to the creation of the Permanent Committee<\/a> on intelligence which still operates in the senate, this room became the Intelligence Committee<\/a> back in those days. In the late 1970s and early 1980s. Until the Hart Building<\/a> was opened in 1983, and the Intelligence Committee<\/a> then moved over there. Then what do you do with a room of this size . At that time it was turned back into a hearing room. Its now sort of an allpurpose, multimedia room. Its been designed for the latest technology, special events, special hearings. There are all sorts of conferences. All sorts of events that take place in this space. So its carried on with the nature of the building being sort of an allpurpose building. This room is a room that has had lots of hard political events in here. But its also had a lot of social entertaining. Most of them are very pleasant and very forgettable occasions. One stands out in particular. And that was the 100th birthday of senator Strom Thurmond<\/a>, of south carolina. Senator thurmond is the only United States<\/a> senator to live to the age of 100 while he was serving in the senate, and of course the senate wanted to pay special tribute to him. So there was a large birthday festivity in here, which, in itself is a very nice occasion, and the then Senate Majority<\/a> leader, trent lott came to pay homage to senator thurmond. And in his remarks, he was, as he said subsequently overly effusive. He praised senator thurmonds career in the senate, and then he recalled that in 1948, senator thurmond had run for president against president harry truman. I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond<\/a> ran for president , we voted for him. Were proud of him. [ applause ] and if the rest of the country had followed our lied, we wouldnt have had all these problems over all these years, either. Which seems a relatively mild statement, except that senator lott forgot that senator thurmond ran as the segregationist candidate against president truman who had helped integrate the armed services. And, as a result, there was a huge a pressure within senator lotts party for him to step down as the leader of his party. And eventually, he did resign as majority leader of the senate as a result of this one statement made in this one room. And so its a reminder that just about everything that a politician says is probably ila going to be recorded and anal e analyzeda and held against them at one time or another, even at an occasion such as a 100th birthday party. Here you go, happy birthday, strom. Blow hard. [ applause ] i should also mention why its called the dirksen building. When the first Senate Office<\/a> building opened, it was known as the Senate Office<\/a> building. And it was known even more popularly by its acronym, which was the s. O. B. Then, when this building opened up, that building became the old s. O. B. And this building became the new s. O. B. And senators began to think that at that was inappropriate, that they should have a more formal title for t senator russell died and was known as a senators senator. He had Great Respect<\/a> from all of his colleagues, regardless of their ideology, their party, so that building was named for Richard Russell<\/a> who was a democrat. And for some balance, this building was named for a senator Everett Dirksen<\/a> who had been the republican leader from 1959 to 19 1969 and who was quite a popular figure with tousled hair, a deep voice, a terrific orator in the old school style. He won an award just for reading patriotic sheet music and speeches with music playing in the background. It was a quite popular piece at the time. Down through the years, there have been men, brave, gallant men who have died that others might be free. And so dirksen, known at wizard of ooze, just as a popular person who actually represented a great spirit of bipartisanship. Because he was the minority leader in the senate with a very small minority. He usually operated with 35 to 3 36 senators on his side. But it was critical when it took twothirds to cut off a filibuster. So if they were going to stop a filibuster on civil rights, they needed Everett Dirksen<\/a>s support. The Nuclear Test Ban<\/a> treaty. Once dirksen agreed to whatever the compromise was, then enough votes would come on board for the majority to prevail. And so Everett Dirksen<\/a>, even though he was only the minority lieder was extremely important leader at this time, and it seemed fitting to name this building after him. Senator dirksen liked to say that he was a man of principle, and one of his greatest principles was to maintain flexibility at all times. And that made him a very agile senator and a man who understood that you have to compromise in order to build consensus. In the United States<\/a> senate, compromise is essential for passing any kind of legislation. Getting some kind of bipartisanship is important because rarely does a Majority Party<\/a> have sufficient votes to be able to pass something entirely by itself. Always the majority leaders have got to persuade members of the minority to come on board. And always theres some kind of a coalition thats being built. So i think thats one of the reasons why the u. S. Senate wanted to commemorate senator dirksen by naming this second building after him. You can watch this or other american artifacts programs at any time by visiting our website, cspan. Org history. Wednesday night on American History<\/a> tv on cspan 3, programs about the civil war. At 8 00 eastern, the 150th anniversary of robert e. Lees surrender at appomattox. We visit the anderson vil pri n prison. We talk to leslie gordon. The civil war at 8 00 eastern here on cspan 3. Thursday on cspan, christmas at the white house. First Lady Michelle<\/a> obama speaks to troops and their families in the east room. A tour of the white House Holiday<\/a> decorations and the annual National Christmas<\/a> Tree Lighting<\/a> ceremony. Christmas at the white house, Christmas Eve<\/a> at 8 00 eastern on cspan. This holiday weekend, American History<\/a> tv on cspan 3 has three days of featured programming, beginning friday evening at 6 30 eastern to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of president dwight david eisenhower, his granddaughters gather for a rare family discussion at Gettysburg College<\/a> to talk about his military and political career as well as his relevance for 21st century americans. Then on saturday afternoon at 1 00, 60 years ago, rosa parks defied a city ordnance for blacks to leave their seats on a city bus to make room for white passengers. Her stand helped instigate the bus boycott as we hear from the attorney for rosa park and demonstrators. Then at 6 00, William Davis<\/a> on the littlephoneknown aspects o ulysses s. Grant and robert e. Lee. And a 1965 Progress Report<\/a> on nasas projects, including the manned Space Program<\/a> and the mayriner fly by. All weekend and on holidays too, only on cspan 3. Up next on American History<\/a> tv, a group of authors and historians talk about the legacy of the 1965 hartcellar act which changed immigration policy from a quota system to one that focussed on skills and family relationships with american citizens or residents. This event took place at the university of californias washington center. Its a little over an hour. [ applause ] thank you very much. Thanks for coming out. In california i really reflect whats happening in the sky. Its very scary. I like to introduce our tremendous panel, all very respected scholars. One of them even has the word distinguished in his title. He never laughed at my jokes. First, on the far, on left, matt garcia, the director of the school of historical, philosophical and religious studies at Arizona State<\/a> university. Garcia was also the outreach director and coprimary director for an archive project for a humanities grant in 2008. Next to him is erica lee, erica lee is an american historian and awardwinning author and teaches history at the university of minnesota where she holds the rudolph j. Vicoli chair. And is the direct or of the research center. Her books include angel island and the making of asian america, a history. Next to her, a long time, im a huge admire irof richard alba, his most recent book is strangers no more. Cowritten with nancy phoner. In 2008, he received the award for the distension wished award of scholarship bestowed by the American Psychological<\/a> association. And professor of asianamerican studies, u. S. Historian interested in questions of immigration, citizenship and nationalism and is the author of illegal aliens and the making of modern america and the lucky ones. Please welcome our distinguished panel. [ applause ] so, again, i just printed this out that october 3rd, 1965, Lyndon Johnson<\/a> is on Liberty Island<\/a> at a signing ceremony, and this is what he says in describing the hartcellar act of 1965. This bill he says we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power. Yet, it is still one of the most important acts of this congress and administration, for it does repair a very deep and painful flaw in the deep fabric of american justice. It corrects a cruel wrong in the conduct of the american nation. Fast forward. This bill says simply that from this day forth, those wishing to emigrate 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, strength, spirit are the first to be admitted to this land. The fairness of this standard is so selfevident, that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. The fact is for over four decades, the immigration policy of the United States<\/a> has been twisted by the quota system. Under that system, the ability of new immigrants to conto america depended on the country of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply 70 of all immigrants. This is lbj . Families were kept apart because a husband or wife or a child had been born in the wrong place. Men of needed skill and talent were denied entrance because they came from southern or Eastern Europe<\/a> or one of the developing continents. This system violated the basic principle of american democracy, the principle that values and rewards each person as a man. It is unamerican in the highest sense because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. Today with my signature this system is abolished. We can never again shatter the gate to the nation with the twin bear juries of privilege im going to cry our beautiful america was built with strangers. They have poured forth into an empty land, joining in one irresistible pie. Those who do come will come because of what they are and not because of the land from which they sprung. Stirring stuff. And i want to start with professor lee. And should i have cried . Could you give us a sense of the reality of that bill at that, on that day, on that signing and the rhetoric, the soaring rhetoric that i just raid. You absolutely should have cried. It was a stirring moment. And to set the theme, not only is he there with this grand desk on Liberty Island<\/a>, but hes got Vice President<\/a> hubert humphrey, lady bird johnson, Hubert Humphreys<\/a> wife,ionson wife, t e home, momentous time. But i like how he downplays it. And i hope what well get to talk about in a little bit is what that actually means, why is he downplaying the momentous change that hes about to write into law . But i think what youre asking is what was the system before 1965. What are the deepened racial what was he referring to . The injustices that he sought to erase. Right, so what hes referring to are the National Origins<\/a> quotas set in place in 1924, the places set in why germany ireland. The quota for germany was 51,000. The quota for italy was Something Like<\/a> 3400. Deeply unfair, unequal system that privileged immigration from northern and western europe, disadvantaged immigration from southern and Eastern Europe<\/a> but also bars almost every asian immigrant group. And, you know, we could go back to the 1880s to talk about those laws. So this is an explicitly discriminatory, racebased system that the law abolished. What were the Political Forces<\/a> that led to this legislation . To the 65 . The 65. Well, the 1964 elections created a super majority in both houses of democrats. It was the largest democratic majority since the new doeal. So thats legislative, now, but what accounts for that super majority, that land slide, in fact, what it changed in the electoral map and the population was the rise of euroamerican ethnics, what we would call white ethnics, slavic americans, the people who worked in the factories. The children of the people who had come before the turn of the century. They were now a voting block. They were active members of the aflcio unions. They had to be reckoned with. And so for that reason, the second and Third Generation<\/a> of the european immigrants, the jews and italians and hungarians, they saw the quotas as an insult to them. People from my country arent good enough to come here. What does that say about what you think of me . So it was part of this movement after world war ii of people of european descent feeling that they were not recognized and appreciated. So what johnson was referring to was a symbolism of telling these ethnic groups, youre as good as the pilgrims. And theres a lot about the structure of the law which think didnt think things would really change, which they were wrong about. But the politics really has to do with i think a changing dem graphic, and those children of the immigrants, they were the ones driving the movement for reform after world war ii. They worked on it all through the 50s, but its not until you have a change in the congress that they can actually pass it. Right. And as part of the civil rights agenda. Now richard, you wrote a book on italian americans. I did indeed. With this, again, with may suggesting an effort to be treated better, an effort to get more of their cousins and brethren into the country . Was it a symbolic act . Its a good question. Ive never looked at the history of italians in this, but given what happened, youd have to say that the impulse must have been more symbolic, because even though the act did away with these discriminatory quotas against various european groups, including italians, the resulting immigration of italians was really quite trivial. It was nothing like the immigration of italians that had been shut off in the 1920s when these National Quota<\/a> systems were implemented. But was there an asian lobby component in this . Was it all eastern and southern european . The big coalitions that were operating in the 50s. I look at their archives, and its all jewish, protestant organizations, the greek americans, and there is one mexicanamerican, george i. Sanchez and out of a letterhead of 100 people. And they were really token members because they dont have the same electoral strength or political voice that the ethnics have. That comes now, right . Understood, but in a variety of papers i raid on the subject there was this idea that this le. So that was never the intechbts . No, they promised people in congress, dont worry, the asians wont come. They said dont worry, theyre not going to come. I do think that were at a major civil rights moment in American History<\/a>. Exactly. And that was not an irrelevant consideration. That this was part of cleaning up american law to remove, you know, what remained of a kind of racist systems embedded in legislation. I just wanted to quote emmanuel seller. He told the house, quote, since the people of africa and asia have very few relatives here comparatively few could emigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the u. S. So he was assuring. Matt, as an expert on a lot of things, but including labor and mexican migration, what was happening around the early to mid 60s regarding the flow of mexicans northward and the stat us of the Bracero Program<\/a> . It was a Guest Worker Program<\/a> started in 1942 and became very controversial in the late 50s, mostly around ernesto galarca who was advocating for the end of the program. And this was really what the modern Farm Worker Movement<\/a> started on. There were two things that sezer chavez wanted to accomplish. And one was to end the Bracero Program<\/a> and the other was to create a possibility for unions. In 1964 they achieved that goal, right . And in many ways mexicans were not really woven into this legislative act. It was dealt with in a different way. The question was, what would happen to these exbraceros. Where would they go . Would they continue to flow north . And there was passed a border industrialization program, which is the beginnings of the kind of program that we live with today. It was thought that those production zones would basically soak up all of that labor that was now free to do what it needs to do in mexico. But in fact, many of those positions were taken by young women. And the need for, and really the dependence on mexican labor continued past 64. So the immigration act really didnt deal with this at all. And that flow continued to flow illegally at that point. So let me step back before we go there, but between 42 and 64, millions of braceros had come north. 4. 6 million, yeah. And there was a part of the immigration act of 1965 that put a cap on the western hemisphere, numbers from the western hemisphere. Can someone speak to the numbers . What was the cap . 20,000. 25. For mexico. For mexico. That was actually in the 1976 act. It was atmospheric cap. So you had 4. 6 million braceros coming north between 42 and 64, and then a cap, the 1965 act put a cap of how many . 190. That includes canada. It has to include canada. The bracero act had ended and people thought people will just stop coming, and then you put a cap on the number of people who could come legally, so it seemed like an absolute recipe for undocumented immigration. Absolutely. If its 190,000, 190,000 plus one, that plus one was your first undocumented or illegal immigration or as they said in that time, the first wet back. So it went from wetback to illegal immigrant to undocumented, the way we talked about it. But that was your first illegal or undocumented immigrant, and its just flowed nor and momore because of the need for labor. Can i just interject something . I was going to add that. Under the 1924 quota law, there were no quota us on the western hemisphere countries, the quotas was for europe, to ep coo out italians, jews and poles. But mexicans were not excluded by any numerical limit. So the rise of illegal immigration or unauthorized migration from mexico which actually starts after 24 is a very interesting story, because theyre not legally prohibited by a quota act, but what go noose place after 24, since you have quotas is everybody has to go through a formal station of port of entry, has to go through inspection, has to have a visa, has to pay a head tax, you know, all these rules that didnt,ist before. Before you showed up. You just showed up. If you didnt limp, you know, and you had 15, you know, you could get through ellis island, no problem. So, and mexicans had for years just been crossing the border where it was convenient to work and they would go back and forth. So now, if you didnt go through all those rules, you would be considered unlawfully present. So the Mexican Border<\/a> is really weird. Because its easy to cross. But only illegally, right . So what happens, then, is so why dont they have a quota on the western hemisphere . Its because of the state department is very committed to a policy of panamericanism. That we should treat our neighbors differently than others, and theres also this need for labor in the southwest where commercial agriculture is really taking off. So all the way up to the 11th hour, hartcellar, the western hemisphere from quotas was still exempt from the bill. And its only at this last minute that theres this frenzied negotiation in the senate where some more moderate members of the senate say wait a minute, we better make these global quotas, because theres a population explosion about to happen in latin america, and if we dont have quotas in the western hemisphere all these brown people are going to come. They dont say brown, but they say explicitly that they want to forestall a mad rush, what they think is going to be a mad rush from latin america. In this pact that the government had portrayed, the collusionry act, there was an attempt to exclude mexicans and lant americans. That was part of the intent of the act. Not to exclude but restrict. And some of the language is absolutely inflammatory that i just heard one of our president ial candidates. The tears are drying up. I just heard one of the president ial candidates use the same term. But in the congressional testimony they say we dont want to open up the floodgates to latin america, asia, africa and turn the u. S. Into a dumping ground for all of these people. And i think its important to point out that the johnson referred to the fairness of the new system, and stressed the ability of people to enter on merit. But in truth, the main provision for entering, under the 1965 act was through family ties. And so there was a builtin, as the legislators saw it, a builtin selection mechanism that would tend to preserve, you know, the kind of ethnic racial composition of the country as it then existed and to limit the numbers of people, particularly asians, who were not well represented then in the american population, because they would lack the family ties to come. So the selection based on skills was a very small part of the quota system that was set up. And actually, its interesting that canada at the same time also revised its immigration legislation and set up a very different system, based on points, which was selective. Of course that meant they got many asians and almost no latinos. One is family rye unification and skills. There was no asian lobby, there was no attempt, there was a promise that more asians wouldnt come in, but many asians came in, how did that happen . They used the skill categories. You see how that happened . And the family. Let me get your tears flowing once more. The one thing that is absolutely important about the 65 act is that it bans racial discrimination, it bans discrimination based on race, et cetera, but that really was important. And then it does set up this preference system, you know, so hes very clear in his words the days of unemploymented limited are over. But theyd been over for a while. And theyd put in border restrictions over the past century. So the two main pathways, family reunification and professional skills set the stage. Its almost like a perfect storm that does work in concert with global changes that could not have been anticipated. Increasingly in asia some of the economies are stabilizing. Theres an expanding population becoming more educated, but the economies are not expanding enough to provide proper employment for those with degrees. So theyre underemployed or unemployed. And then theres this pathway into the United States<\/a> for those with family but also those with skills. So, for asians, after generations of being separated by exclusion laws from their loved ones in asia, some of the very first who take advantage of the new bill are those who are bringing, finally bringing over their wives and children and then their, theres a whole preference category, spouses, minor children, brothers and sisters. And this chain migration gets established so much so that for some, for some communities, the act is nicknamed the brothers and sisters act. If you go back to the skills did you, you both studied this. Any sense, give us some of the sense of the numbers and the om occupations and the countries of origin right after the law was passed and how that worked. Well, when you look at the flows and simply the education level of the asian immigrants and you compare them to the educational levels in their countries of origin. Theres just a tremendous disparity. So what it led to was, and its interesting how much it has therefore affected the way we perceived this in the United States<\/a>. Because the asians who came were very well educated. You know, people with professional qualifications. And their children, of course, have done exceptionally well in american circumstances. So our image, now, of the chinese is really almost the pull apart from the image of the chinese in the United States<\/a> that existed before the act, but its probably also very different from the reality of the chinese population from which these immigrants are coming. I bet most of you would not be surprised if i said we have a lot of nurses in our hospitals in this country that come from the philippines, right . We all know about the filipino nurses. Why do we have so many nurses from the philippines in why is that . Well, after 1965, there was, first of all, there was a need for more nurses in this country. This is a time of great expansion of the medical, the health care system. Im from new york. This is when a lot of the City Hospitals<\/a> expand. So theres a shortage of nurses in the United States<\/a>. And the philippines actually had a history of training nurses in the philippines that had been set up by americans. Because the philippines used to be a colony of the United States<\/a>, so theres a professional tradition of training and education there. So filipino nurses began to apply to come to the United States<\/a>. Its a shortage. Its on the department of labors list of occupations that you can come, you know, get a green card for. So the philippines, you know, so the other part of this is that every country has a maximum of 20,000. And it kicks in later for the western hemisphere, but, you know, once the sis teystem is i place, all countries are limited to 20,000. So the philippines, 20,000 is usd up almost entirely by medical, by nurses and other medical professionals. And in the philippines, nursing becomes an export industry. Mmhm. Theres a shortage of nurses in the philippines. [ laughter ] but theres no shortage of filipino nurses to come to the United States<\/a>. The other part of the way these chains work is that once you come in through the professional cat go category, you can use the family catego category, so it spills into the other categories. I want to go back to matt and the new significance of, the term illegal alien and the undocumented. And the cap, the western hemisphere cap that led to an increase in undocumented immigrants and what the effect then, what the perception of immigrants were, how did the hemispheric cap and almost the eliciting, how did that affect the latino, the mexicanamerican experience in the southwest, what it meant, i dont mean to put words in your mouth, but im interested in the relations between the mexicanamerican, the longtime latter generation americanborn, how they saw foreign bourne cu foreignborn cousins . It created an artificial separation between mexicanamericans and mexican immigrants, and you see this i think most pronouncedly in 1970s when Caesar Chavez<\/a> again, hes trying to realize the second part of his dream which is unionization of farm workers, and hes finding that when he goes out in the field, yes, theres a lot of mexicanamericans, but theres all these foreign people here, how do i organize people who dont have citizenship, how do i bring them into the fold . And hes sponsored by the aflcio, and theyve taken a line, look, we dont consider noncitizens as being people that we want to organize. So, in many ways you can see Caesar Chavez<\/a>s position which is not to organization immigrants as a manifestation of a Good Union Man<\/a> of that time. What i always often say great leaders transcend their time and place. That is one division between mexicans and mexicanamericans that played out sometimes in families, such as mine, so that, in communities where, you know, we might have a cousin who has come, but we cant embrace them the way that we would our mexicanamerican cousins who have been here for two and three generations. And these kind of conversations went around many mexicanamerican, mexican family tables. So had it not been for hartceller, it would have been seen more as italianamerican, and suddenly now the newcomers were illegal. They were somehow distinct. Could you speak to the significance after hartceller and how it changed the way we talk about immigration in the United States<\/a> since then . Well, the, you have the hemispheric quota. The country quotas quick in in 76. And within a few years theres already this crisis narrative in the press about the borders out of control, were being by what year. By the 1970s, i mean, the Immigration Reform<\/a> and control act, which is passed in 86, which legalizes nearly 3 million undocumented, that happens in 86, but it takes five to six years to get it through congress. Theres organizing going on from the late 70s and early 80s. So its already a problem. And the way that hartceller has been explained is that its a Civil Rights Act<\/a>, we treat every person the same. So people dont question, why do we treat mexico the same as new zealand. And we presume thats fair. And thats supposed to be fair. So this is kind of the perverse civil lights legacy of hartceller is that we have to treat every country the same. Well, we didnt treat every country the same under the origins act. We treated them in a racist manner. But there would be ways to treat countries in a rationale logic. Being contiguous to the United States<\/a>, i think you should get more people. You have a long relationship with the United States<\/a> like the philippines, maybe you shouldnt be held to a cap. But we have this idea that you have to treat everybody exactly the same. And thats a very abstract idea. Jimmy carter was already talking about sanctions in 1977. So there was already an acknowledgement. I always remind people, this is not necessarily a republican or democratic issue, when we actually follow it through. We see republicans and democrats both sounding the alarm bells about illegal immigration and what to do with it. And yet, erica reminds us that there was a big band of immigration policy, this made it impossible for them to pass laws that would exclude asian people, and it changed the nature of the country, and it changed the nature of asian america. And i wonder if you could talk about, you talked about chain migration and skills. But you just wrote a book about this, and this is a plug here. [ laughter ] it seems to me, erica, that asiaamerica as we know it today and its growth owes its very existence to the hartceller act. It does. So, from youre welcome. Thank you. As i say in my book. So from 1830, people came from asia, mostly japan. And larger numbers from the philippines. By 1960, that number stayed stag napts, so by 1960, there were still a million asians in the United States<\/a>, largely because of the exclusion laws. About 1 of the population. Now theres been a lot of news about this. Some of which the headlines are a little troubling, but asianamericans are the fa fastestgrowing group. They grew from 2010. Just this week theres projections into the population into 20465. And theres this headline about asians surpassing mentihispanic. But its been the main reason why that population growth for asianamericans has been so large, about 90 of the population growth is due to new immigration. So richard, ericas talking about racial interpretations and potential tensions in the immigration, elicited by the post65. Has the country responded well to the diversefication of its population, one, and are we prepared for more change Going Forward<\/a> . Well, the first question is really hard to answer, because you have to sort of set up a hypothetical, you know. What would be better than the way we responded . We dont have very good models of that. A tremendous transformation, obviously, has taken place. You know, in 1970, say, before the new immigration spurred by the hartceller really took off, this was largely a white and black society with mexicans were kind of isolated in the southwest. There was a small number of asians, so, you know, whites were more than 80 of the population. Africanamericans were about 12 or 13 of the population, and the number of foreignborn was very small. It was under 5 . U you know, how different is our world today from what that world was. Now whites are a much smaller part of the population. Latinos have become the largest minority. Asians are growing the most rapidly. The foreignborn today is almost 14 where were nearing the Historical Records<\/a> that were set in the early part of the 20th century. Its a profound change. Not everyone welcomes change. Is that a surprise . I dont think so. And, you know, id be happy to talk if you give me more time, i dont know that you should. [ laughter ] i dont know if i should either. Theres obviously, theres a lot of unease among older whites especially, with the changes that are taking place. I mean, a feeling that this isnt the country that they grew up in. This isnt the america that they think should, that it should be. And, but i think one has to recognize that this unease is deliberately being stoked for political reasons by some people who are running as candidates and its being worked up in various ways. Let me move you away from politics. Okay. Tell he what y tell me what you want to talk about. You answered it beautifully until that last sentence. I want to also talk about other forms of diversity, in youth and children and the youthfulness of our population which some could attribute to the 1965 act. Thank you. Thank you. One of the blessings of the United States<\/a> aside from the diversity that the hartceller act initiated has been the relative youthfulness of our population compared to that of many other economically equivalent societies. So were not japan. Were not germany. We have a much Larger Population<\/a> of young people relative to old people than you would find in a number of other countries of similar kind of economic stature. And i mean, let me add to this, one of the fruits of this diversity is the growing population of people whose families transcend single groups. And so one of the, i think the potentially transformative developments of the last several decades is the rise of interracial and nonhispanic hispanic pairings. Thats marriage plus other kinds of unions, and the growing population of young people that are coming from these family backgrounds. So i looked recently at some census data. I analyzed individual data to identify children who were coming from mixed families. Not simply because they were identified as such, because theyre not always clearly identified as such, but because their parents were different backgrounds. So i looked at infants. And today about 15 of the infants in the United States<\/a> come from mixed family backgrounds. Wow, thats a lot. And i think its reasonable to think that that will continue to grow some, at least, over the coming years, because the demographic changes in relative group sizes favor higher levels of intermarriage and mixed unions, at least in the near future. Thank you. Theres a dark side to that. I wont rain on it too much. Please rain. But that is while we can celebrate the youthfulness of the immigrants, we also have to think of descending countries and that results in a brain drain and a drain of people in their most productive time of life, theyre coming to america and leaving those countries, so in some ways it perpetuates a u. S. Imperialism. Your point is good, but a lot of these young people are u. S. Born. So were not talking just about immigrants but the second and Third Generation<\/a>. I just wanted to go back to hartceller on this. At the time that hart cellar was being passed, i think the thing, we all talk about the quote, the National Origins<\/a> and the treating everybody equally, but theres another side to Immigration Law<\/a> which also goes back to 24, which is the overall ceiling, when johnson says the days of unlimited migration are over, that ended in the 20s with world war i. And the cap on migration in 1924 was 150,000. Before the war, the average annual migration was about 1 million. So they cut it to 15 of the prewar average. And in 1965, they raised it in absolute numbers but they kept it at the same proportion of the population, one sixth of 1 . So when they raised it to 290,000, it was really stingy, really, really sting eye. And you had demgraphiers and researchers saying you better raise that number. Theres a falling birthrate in western europe. So in a way, hartceller, the unintended consequences with hartceller is what enabled us to have a younger population, but its not because hartceller wanted it that way. It was meant to do x, but it did y. And it banned discrimination, but yet has discrimination. Am i to be sell bacelebratin . Is this good news . Was this a successful act of congress . Or was it just did these, did they know what they with doing . No. No, they didnt know what they were doing. Is this how immigration policy is always enacted . Oh, yes. Immigration policy is crazy. They didnt know what they were doing. And its complicated. And its complicated. Its a facebook status. But its transformative. We have to accept, whether its, you know, theres a mix of good and bad, but our country has been transformed by the consequences of hartceller. Were a very Different Society<\/a> than we would have been had hartcehar hartceller had not been passed. I think its very difficult to see it from a latino point of view. The cap created the illegal immigration label. Imperilled the use of farm workers, created divisions within families. It then led to in the 1990s things like proposition 187 that was kind of a continuation of those things that were created from 1965. And, you know, ive had these same arguments with my grandmother, frankly, and i think its been very, very wrenching for latino families. And they are ate ore the ones the most vocal in saying we need Immigration Reform<\/a>, i think because theyve suffered the longest. On that note, id like to thank you all for coming, and id like to thank the panel. [ applause ] and we are now going to take some here we go. Thank you so much. Were now opening. We have time for questions. There are two of us coming with microphones. This is being recorded. Cspan is here and will be broadcasting this in the next couple weeks. It is also on the website, what it means to be american. Org. You can send it to friends, family, students who couldnt make it out tonight. So say your name before you speak. Josephines got the first one on the left. My name is jay. And id like the panelists to opine visavis about the africanAmerican Community<\/a>. They are edging out the after can American Community<\/a> in influence. Whats the impact of x proposal on the africanAmerican Community<\/a>. Whether at that law has meant positively or negatively for that community. Anyone . Go ahead. Well, it certainly shifted the demographics. Africanamericans are now 10 or 11 of the population, 12 , sorry, and latinos are 18 . I dont think its diminished the role and the importance of after c africanamericans in politics. I dont think thats been the effect. And i dont think that the argument that immigrants are taken jobs from black people holds up either. You can identify a very small number of sectors in the economy, but really, its different job markets. You know, theyre not competing for work in agriculture. Theyre not competing for work in, you know, a lot of the how long construction, a lot of the work that immigrants do, especially undocumented immigrants, its a different labor market. But theres a perception of competition. The reason for high black unemployment, incarceration, police violence, you cannot say immigration is the cause of any of those problems. Its a whole other set of issues that are historical and contemporary. I think one of the important things that happened in maybe like the 80s was that the africanamerican Civil Rights Movement<\/a> became much more closely allied with the immigrant rights movement, so i would say they are social movements of people of color, that theres an alliance, and i think thats a positive thing. Next question on the right. Hi, melinda machado. Were at a time that the u. S. Is in vietnam. Could you talk about the vietnam war and its effects, refugee policies and how that affected, interacted with immigration policies . One of the things that johnson says in his bill as a way of promoting thed\\ passage hartceller is to name all of the different european ethnic groups who are soldiers, who are fighting on behalf of the American Forces<\/a> in vietnam. Another way of including european americans from southern Eastern Europe<\/a>an background as full americans. Thats one part of it, and, but the whole refugee situation and our humanitarian need to accept refugees was not on their radar yet. And, in fact, it would not, it was not on their radar until april of 1975. So when, the fall of saigon, april 30th of 1975. And when you look at some of those cables that are coming out of saigon at that very moment, its chaos. Its absolute chaos. Theres enough work that has to be done to evacuate american personnel, the south vietnamese is really, theyre very secondary if on the radar at all. Nevertheless, given the refugee crisis that were looking at in europe, this is an instructive time to be thinking about what we did do, 130,000 south vietnamese were evacuated from april to december of 1975. Thats a large number in a short time, given the fact that we had no Refugee Resettlement<\/a> process established yet. We had none of the social services established yet like we do now. And that over the subsequent decades we did resettle over 1 million Southeast Asian<\/a> refugees, not only from vietnam but from laos. And my hometown has been transformed. I agree with what erica said, but the other angle is that the civil rights legislation, both in terms of the Civil Rights Act<\/a> and the hartceller act, theyre taking place in a cold war context, and the administration, both kennedy and johnson administrations were very, very conscious of the International Reputation<\/a> or the tarnishing of americas reputation in the, as the leader of world, you know the free world. And you have jim crow, the National Origin<\/a> quotas. So a lot of the willingness of the administrations to enact several rights reform, so we look better around the world. And thats part of the symbolism of civil rights. So, in the minds of the powers that be, theyre always calculating the political gain and loss from these measures, and Foreign Policy<\/a> is very, very much on their minds. Its why johnson refers to the ethnic americans fighting in vietnam. But also, if you read to the very end of johnsons speech, he announces the cuban refugee program. Thats the last thing he says at the statue of liberty. Yeah. And theres no refugee act at that time, but theres special legislation that hes going to put forward to allow cubans fleeing communism to come to the United States<\/a>. So i think the International Context<\/a> for all this is very much on everybodys mind. Next question on your left. Thank you very much. Nima bliden. I right and teach about african immigration. And Immigration Law<\/a> has had a strange relationship with african immigration. We dont see africans as immigrants. In new york were very aware of people of african descent as immigrants. So many people who are black in new york city are in fact first or second generation. So i think that varies very much by place, but whats also important and maybe neglected in the recent population projections that pays so much attention to asians is the growth of the african immigrant population. I siee no reason why that wont continue. Africa, theres clearly a large group of people in africa who can qualify under the skills requirements of american law, and i would expect people to keep coming. One of the other they didnt know what they were doing or the unintended consequences of the american Immigration Law<\/a> is do people know about the lottery . In 1990, congress add 155,000 visas that you didnt have to have a skill or relative. It was a lot you could be now they wanted it for more white people to come. Because you couldnt apply for the lottery unless your country had not sent people in the last 15 years. So it was for lowsending countries. And they wanted the lottery to get more europeans, more whites to come. But africans used it. [ laughter ] thats another unintended consequence of all this. I just wanted to add, again, from the perspective of minneapolis where we have the largest somali population in the United States<\/a>, i think similar to latinos and asianamericans, we cant just talk about the africanamerican population with this incredibly Diverse Group<\/a> of refugees as well as people from latin america and africanamericans, so thats definitely going to be another aspect of future trends. Enter ethnic relations within one racial group. Next question on your right. Peter leopold. Immigration is i have complicated, and id like to toss back to the group one of the complications that you may have skirted a little bit in order to make it a little bit simpler, and thats the question about immigration and path to citizenship that of may spoke about the filipinos coming as nurses but they were h 2 a but were not on a path to citizenship. A lot of people who come with skills are not on a path to citizenship. In the case of the filipinos, theyre legalized, and allowed to stay, but its not the intent, so if you could sort of reconsider it a little bit, breaking apart those that come with the path to citizenship and which is largely brothers and sisters and those that come with skills that were just borrowing from other countries. So i was on a recent Academy Panel<\/a> that considered immigrant integration which did look at the lega","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801200.us.archive.org\/12\/items\/CSPAN3_20151223_082000_1965_Hart-Celler_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act\/CSPAN3_20151223_082000_1965_Hart-Celler_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20151223_082000_1965_Hart-Celler_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240623T12:35:10+00:00"}