Routine basis know paul well. Hes been our fearless leader for the past several years in helping to direct the symposium. Because of that, i feel like no introduction is needed. That old canard, but in pauls case, its really true. Ill just say that he comes to us from the university of saskatchewan to give you a sense of how far hes come to be with us today. Hes there on a professor, visiting professorship on human rights. And hell be speaking on a nation of immigrants, the keynote, of course, is an opportunity to look at the theme in a broader sense. So hes going to be laying the groundwork for everything were going to be discussing tomorrow, and i hope youll all come back if you can tomorrow as well. One last thing before paul comes up to the podium. We have a special lunch program, something we dont do typically. Were going to have a speaker join us during lunch period tomorrow. So we can keep people in the room, but have boxed lunches to make that easy for you. And i think youll really enjoy it if youre suspicious about what a living history interpreter does, its a good chance for you to find out what kind of historians deal with the public directly. These are people who speak to classroom groups, tour groups, specific Historic Sites and so on. I think youll be really impressed by ron ducetpert interpretation of the immigrant. Thats why we invited him. Without further ado, paul finkelman. Thank you very much. Its delightful to be here. I think its marvelous that were doing this on cinco de mayo. And of course, when, as chuck pointed out, when we planned this conference about a year ago, we had no idea that it would be as much in the news and as important a topic as it has become. I would like to say were prophets and that we could envision the last year of american politics, but then that would not be true. And it would also be impossible. So here we are. We are a nation of immigrants. Its a theme that runs throughout our history, throughout our Public School books. I did a quick search of something called world cat, which tells you where all the books are located in libraries around the world. I find dozens of entries with the title a nation of immigrants including perhaps the most interesting one, a book written by senator john f. Kennedy in 1958, republished in 1964, posthumously with an introduction by his brother, robert kennedy, and republished again in 2008 with an introduction by his other brother, senator edward kennedy. The phrase appears, of course, in scholarly articles and popular journals, in popular media all the time. Most americans take pride in the notion that were a nation of immigrants. The story of immigrant success, the story of america as a safe haven for immigrants is woven in much of our history. More than one scholar has indeed noted that the history of immigration the history of america itself. This would even be true, of course, if you were focusing on native americans because they would be seeing the history of america from the other side of immigration. But in a sense, immigration runs throughout our history. When i was growing up, the school books focused on the famous successful immigrants andrew carncarnegie, Alexander Graham bell, john ericson, the great engineer, and occasionally, jack warner and his brothers, who helped create the movie industry. Every book would have a mention of the great immigrant scientists who helped us win the war, albert einstein, edward teller, and enrico ferme, while skipping over the postwar nazi immigrant ferner von brown. Today, immigrant heroes are more likely to be found in hightech. The founder of intel is from hungary. One from india, he invented the pentium chip, without which life itself could not be popular, and the cofounder of google, which is in fact life itself. Alternatively, of course, we learned of the great entertainers, irving berlin, greta garbo, sophia loren, zsa zsa gabor, and now the more recent immigrant entertainers, Natalie Portman from israel, Arnold Schwarzenegger from austria, dan aykroyd from canada, and Eddie Van Halen from the netherlands. Theres the litany of sports figures, the first generation was actually children of immigrants, lou gehrig, joe dimaggio, hank greenberg, and today, we have the immigrants themselves, yao ming, martina nart aloava, wayne gretzky, and arguably, the single greatest immigrant athlete of our time, mariano rivera. Who . The people from boston have spoken. When we consider the role of congress and the executive branch in immigration, it is, of course, important to understand that immigrants and their children, and when we speak about immigrants, its almost always important to talk about the first generation because they are almost always raised in immigrant communities. And indeed, theres a phenomenally wonderful map that the census produced for the 1910 census, which shows county by county the percentage of immigrants and their children across the United States. Bright red meant that they were 50 or more immigrant, and of course, not surprisingly, all of new york city, most of new jersey are bright red. But so is virtually all of idaho, all of montana, the dakotas, wisconsin, minnesota. We forget how incredibly important immigration was with their children across the settlement of the United States. And today, of course, popular culture, and so when we talk about politics, we talk about both the immigrants and children of immigrants who are in politics. Popular culture, of course, today celebrates the west indian kid who came to new york looking for a College Education and instead ended up as the secretary of the treasury. Meanwhile, while hes unlikely to have a broadway play after him, theres also the son of the west indian immigrants who went to Public Schools in new york, went to city college, and ended up being chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and secretary of state. Colin powell, of course, followed in the recent footsteps of many immigrants and their children who have ended up in president ial cabinets and their equivalent. Indeed, in the last half century, there have been at least 20 immigrants and their children who have served at that level of american government. We have had two secretaries of state, one secretary of the treasury, one secretary of interior, two National Security advisers, one of whom was also secretary of state, and one ambassador to the united nations, all of whom were naturalized american citizens. When we think about the role of the immigrant in American History, we have to wonder what would it be if we cut off this stream of immigration that has provided us with so much leadership. There are, of course, many children of immigrants in congress today, in president ial cabinets, and the numbers of grandchildren of immigrants who were raised in families where immigration matters. Simply too big to count. This has always been the case. In the 1790s, there was senator Pearce Butler from ireland, and as we will learn tomorrow, senator albert galatyn from switzerland. In the mid19th century, deefd leavy ueli, and charles sures, all of whom were immigrants. In the 20th century, robert wagner, mel martinez serving in the senate. This is only the skimming the easy names off the top. It would be too difficult to list all the house members, i would simply run out of time. In 1790, 10 of congress was foreign born. In the mid 1880s, 8 of congress was foreign born. Today its down to 2 . Central to the notion of the nation of immigrants has been that america has been a refuge of the oppressed. And americans, of course, have been proud of this, and this is in part reflected by the nickname of the two great entrees to the United States, both ellis island and angel island are known as the golden door at the time that they were active and in subsequent history since. Theres a good reason for this. Whatever else we may say in criticizing some aspects of American Culture and american society, the golden doors provided an enormous amount of economic opportunity, as well as a safe haven for political and religious refugees from around the world. In the lazaruss poem on the base of the statute of liberty encapsulates the ideals and the ideology of the nation of immigrants and a golden door. Keep ancient land your storied pomp, she cries, with silent lips. Give me your tired, your poor, your masses to be free. Send these, the homeless tempest toss to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. For many newcomers, historically, the site of lady liberty was something they never forgot. My own grandparents and great aunts and uncles recalled the thrill of seeing the statue as their ship came into new york harbor after a less than pleasant voyage and steerage from europe. For my own grandfather on my fathers side, the statue had greater meaning. He came to america at a time when federal law banned immigrants with various kinds of loathsome or dangerous diseases, as the federal statute put it. My grandfather wasnt sure what loathsome or dangerous diseases was, but he knew that he had bad eyes. And he knew that if you had bad eyes, you didnt get into the United States. He didnt know what trachoma was, and he didnt know he didnt have it. Instead of going through ellis island, which is how his siblings and parents went, he went from southern poland to hamburg to manchester to halifax to montreal, and he took the train from montreal to plats brg, new york. One can hardly imagine a more dismal way to enter the United States. And he crossed in as a tourist. And he took the train to new york city. And he stayed in new york city until he discovered that his bad eyes were not what they would stop you for at ellis island. So he took the boat out to ellis island. Hes one of the few immigrants to go reverse trip to ellis island so he could come in to the United States. He came in to the country in a sense through the back door, and only later reentered through the golden door. My other grandfather came through the golden door in 1913, when he was about 13 years old. But you had to be 16 to work, so he lied on his immigration papers, said he was 16, so he could go to work. And then when he was only about 17, uncle sam sent a little letter greetings, world war i is now here, and so my grandfather got drafted before he was eligible, but he couldnt very well say, oh, no, no, im too young. And then, on august 8th, 1918, he became a citizen under the amended act of may 1918 while stationed at camp gordon in georgia. So were a nation of immigrants, but not everyone came in according to the rules. Thus am i the face of the illegal alien. My father and mother, both born in new york city, are what some people would call anchor babies. They were anchoring their illegal fathers who today of course would be expelled from the United States for the way they came into the country. They snuck in through the golden door and lied about it to stay here. Now, despite the easy praise for immigrants who made good and the easy case to be made for immigrant contributions to american society, theres always been, of course, the counternarrative. Often, immigrants are seen as a threat to society or the cause of social and political problems. Immigrants have been condemned for undermining the moral climate of america and have been singled out for criminal misbehavior when, of course, american citizens who did the same thing dont make headlines. Religion, ethnicity, and race have been a constant theme of antiimmigration rhetoric in the United States. Advairious times, the nation and even some states in many cities have encouraged immigration for economic reasons. While at the same time, opponents of immigration have vigorously argued that it would depress wages and threaten the incomes of native born citizens. By the way, this is going on right now today. There are a number of cities that are seeking out immigrants to revitalize depressed neighborhoods, depressed cities, even as other people complain about the flood of immigrants that keep coming to the United States. Thus, historically, and certainly today, there have been loud calls for Immigration Reform and severe immigration restrictions. Immigration is, of course, a central issue in the president ial campaign this year. This is, of course, the elephant or the donkey in the room. Im not sure which it might be. Ironically, four of the major president ial candidate this year are the children of immigrants. This has never happened before. Two of the major president ial candidates are married to immigrants. And one was born outside the United States and is arguably not a natural born citizen and therefore was never eligible to be president in the first place. At no other time in u. S. History have so many children of immigrants been viable candidates for a president ial nomination. Should donald trump become president , he will be the first child of an immigrant to become president of the United States, while simultaneously being a serial spouse of immigrants. This, of course, is a new world for us. As this conference will demonstrate, the rules for immigration and citizenship have been constantly changing. What i would like to talk about for the rest of the evening is opposition to immigration and the way it has affected the rules for immigration. Obviously, theyre interconnected. When opponents of immigration are ascendant, the rules have changed, making it more difficult for the huddled masses who are yearning to be free to in fact become free. Or, if they get here at all, to become citizens. Opposition to immigration, as i have noted, has been based on religion, ethnicity, race, and sometimes unabashed bigotry. Sometimes these sentiments known in the u. S. History as nativism, have been quite open. Sometimes theyre couched in terms about economics, competition, or respect for the law. Often, immigration has been based on narrow political considerations. Most famously, of course, in 1798, the Federalist Party tried to stop immigration, made it far more difficult for immigrants to become citizens. Why . Because the federalists understood most of the immigrants were voting for the party of thomas jefferson. Similarly, in the 1840s and 1850s, the nativist movement, culminating in the know Nothing Party with its president ial campaign of 1856, again, did not want catholic immigration in part because a number of the know nothings, including their 1856 president ial candidate, Millard Fillmore, had previously lost elections because they lost the catholic vote. Now, fillmore could never understand why the catholics didnt vote for him after he campaigned in favor of mandatory protestant bible reading in the new york Public Schools, but perhaps that was his own limitation. The earliest example i can find of antiimmigration sentiment comes from an outburst in governor William Bradfords diary in 1642. Bradford was the governor of the plymouth coliny. And bradford complained the population was being corrupted by recent immigrants who were, quote, wicked persons and profane people who had so quickly come over to this land and mixed amongst us. The religious men who began the community had come for religions sake and now they had these wicked people. Bradford was referring to the recent execution for beastality of a young man named thomas granger, who at age 17, had been caught in the barnyard doing things which were illegal. When asked where he learned this immoral behavior, granger said, quote, he was taught it by another who had heard of such things from some in england when he was there and they kept cattle together. Thus, bradford blamed grangers fatal deviant behavior on recent immigrants who had corrupted this young man living in plymouth. Bradford also noted that another young man had been recently executed for sodomy, having confessed he long ago used it in old england. Bradford concluded this illustrated how one wicked person may affect many and he urged residents to be careful of what servants they bring into their family. Bradford recorded the case in his diary, including various details about grangers behavior, which i will not go into. Suffice to say, granger confessed to having sex with various barnyard creatures as well as a wild turkey. He was subsequently hanged, and all of the barnyard creatures were also killed and thrown into a big pit. By the way, the massachusetts magistrates were truly befuddled about what to do about the turkey, and so they went in and shot three wild turkeys and threw them in the pit to symbolically cleanse the society from this imorality. After grangers execution, bradford tried to understand why, quote, wickedness did break forth in a land where so much was so witnessed against and so narrowly looked unto, and he concluded that grangers behavior plus adultery and nonmarital sex and, quote, even sodomy and buggery, things too fearful to name, having just named them, have broke forth in this land oftener than once. And what bradford focused on was the fact that most of the offenders were either immigrants or people who had been corrupted by immigrants. And he tried to explain this by looking at the labor shortage in plymouth. And he noted that many of the settlers desperate for laborers that when they could not have such as they would, were glad to take such as they could. And so, of course, settlers of plymouth were willing to take irreligious people, people of questionable morals, recent immigrants, because they were desperate for labor. And then he concluded another and more main reason here was that men finding so many godly persons disposed to come to these parts, some began to make a trade of it. To transport passengers and their goods, and highered ships for that end, and then, to make up their freight and advance their profit, they cared not who the persons were if they had the money to pay them. And so by this means, the country became pestered with many unworthy persons who came over, crept into one place or another. In other words, plymouth in the 1640s was being overrun by the wrong kind of immigrants, brought by greedy capitalists who were willing to fill their ships with anybody who could pay their passage. This, of course, in some ways reflects the problems that opponents of immigrants often talk about. Not only bad peo