With all of the talk about illegal immigration, a lot of people bring up that America is “founded on immigration.” Surely, my ancestors came over on a boat just 2 generations ago.
How much of this old school immigration was illegal? Was it (coming in and staying illegally) as common back then as it is now? Were the laws different? Quotas higher? Was it different because most of the immigrants were coming via boat or plane and easier to “catch”?
I just want to be able to quantify immigration of earlier times with today’s stats.
I don’t have actual stats on hand, but it might be helpful to think of immigration to the U.S as occurring in three eras:
The era of entirely unrestricted immigration – hence, “illegal” immigration did not exist. I think this ended sometime around 1850. (Some immigrants were denied some basic rights de facto – “no Irish need apply” and all that – but they weren’t “illegal” per se).
The era of somewhat controlled immigration, but no strict quotas by country of origin. In other words, officials at Ellis Island could reject you for showing symptoms of certain diseases. I suppose by some definitions “illegal” immigration existed during this period, but its definition may not conform enough to today’s definition to make any statistics all that reliable.
The era of strict quotas by country of origin. I believe this began in earnest in the early 1920’s, although restrictions on Chinese on the West Coast began earlier.
In sum, the liberal’s preference for the word “undocumented” rather than “illegal” highlights how you need to define your question better for the time period before modern documents. (For example, passports were rare, and certainly not mandatory, up until more recently than you might think – 1910 or so, I believe.)
Also, what exactly do you mean by illegal? In general, there are three kinds of illegals.
You Jumped the Border/Customs. In the modern parlance, these are dubbed “Entered Without Inspection” (EWI, pronounced ee-wee). You never had any kind of permission to enter the country.
You Overstayed Your Visa. You entered the country legally – as a tourist, student, etc – but by overstaying your visa, you become illegal.
Fraudulent - You enter and stay in the country with permission, but its based on fraud - marriage fraud, fraudulent asylum claims, etc. You’re illegal if/when they find you out.
I think you’re talking about EWI when you say “illegal immigrant” but I’m not sure.
I kind of need to understand what “illegal” means anyway.
Perhaps I mean to compare today’s immigration to the immigration of my family which would have been in the very early 1900s. I want to understand the argument against letting anyone who wants to come in come in which is “well this country was founded on immigration.” Are those people who say that saying that most of the European immigrants of the late 1800s/early 1900s also came in illegally as many Mexicans do today?
In regards to your points, Hello Again, I think you’re right that I am asking about #1. Let’s assume that the “immigration problems” of today are caused by people literally coming across the border unchecked and unaccounted for, then sticking around to make a life.
Can we compare that sort of immigration to previous waves of immigration, in that the same laws existed in the early 1900s? Did people come in unchecked and unaccounted for? Could they? Were immigrant Jews of the WWII era smuggled in? Were immigrant Germans of the 1800s hidden from the government?
The article that flurb linked to did have a lot of info but it leaned towards the idea that immigration laws in the US are constantly changing based on the types/numbers of people who are wanting to come here. It also seemed strange that the immigration laws didn’t seem too “tough” until “Operation Wetback” which started in 1954 and involved Mexicans.
So I’m wondering if comparing immigrants of the last 50 years to the immigrants of the previous 200 years is sort of an empty argument since the rules have changed completely, the available modes of getting into the country (boat vs. foot) and the group of people most wanting to come to the country (Mexicans) have changed.
This kind of drives me crazy, and not only because everyone knows that it’s just a polite euphemism for “illegal.” What is undocumented? If it’s know that you’re here by the ICE (but they’re not picked you up for whatever reason), then it’s “documented” that you’re here. If you have your own country’s documentation, then you’re documented, just not with US papers, unless you’re documented in the sense that I mentioned prior. Does it merely mean “EWI” as Hello Again said? What about the visa over-stayers? They’re documented, except they have no exit documentation (having never exited).
“Illegal” itself is a shorthand, as in “illegally here” (I often hear that a person per se can’t be illegal), but it seems to cover all of the bases, whereas undocumented is just a misnomer in many cases.
I can admit my fallibility – what am I missing in not respecting this preference?
the group of people most wanting to come to the country (Mexicans) have changed.
I don’t know that that’s necessarily true. It’s just that it’s easier for them than, say, someone from Micronesia (just to name an arbitrary place).
Think of Ellis Island. All the people who came through that entry point were documented. Not comparable to what is happening today with people sneaking across the border.
That’s what I am trying to wrap my head around. In my mind, early 1900s immigrants came through Ellis Island, were documented and made their way through naturalization and became real “American citizens” and then helped “build” this country through the industrial era.
But, with all this talk comparing the Mexican immigration of today to immigration of yesterday by saying “this country was founded on/built by immigrants” makes me wonder if my neat, clean idea of immigration = Ellis Island is not true.
Hello Again - was this “visa overstay” a problem in the early 1900s, or is this a recent phenomenon? The articles you linked to don’t seem to cover the history of it - more like pointing out that it’s not just Mexicans crossing the borders lately it’s also more Asian and Arab people on visa overstays. I’m trying to compare the European immigration waves to the waves of today.
Basically I’m trying to see if all of the German, Polish, Italian and Slovak immigrants who made up much of my area’s history were here illegally or not. If someone says “we should let all of the illegal immigrants stay because YOU wouldn’t be here if we didn’t accept immigrants” I could retort with “yes but all/most/the vast majority of immigrants that built Cleveland were here legally and eventually naturalized.”
I believe there are some people who, for political reasons, purposely try to conflate the two. This being GQ, though, it’s probably inappropriate to get into that any further.
We actively encouraged immigration back then. There was a backlash in the 20s, and some pretty restrictive laws were passed. Things liberalized a bit in the mid 60s, and we do have lots and lots of legal immigrants now-- maybe as many as we’ve had since those Ellis Island days.
The problem is that the notion “were here legally” is anachronistic. As already pointed out, for a huge portion of our history, there was no distinction between an alien and an illegal alien. There were no laws restricting who could come into the country. We didn’t even start counting who came into the country until 1819, and then it was just a law that captains of ships had to report who was on board when they came to port.
The phenomenon of illegal immigration is almost entirely a 20th Century one. Ellis island didn’t exist for much of the waves of European immigration.
How did we (or didn’t we) keep track of immigrants prior to the 20th century then? There must have been some records in order to determine who was allowed to become a Congressman, Senator, or President. Or even simpler, who was allowed to vote.
My family folklore claims that some ancestors on my fathers side were illegal, at the time of the Civil War. The story told by my father is that a man and his sons emigrated from Scotland, entered Canada legally, then snuck across the border into the US. They were caught, and told that they could stay if they joined the Union army. So the father and his sons all signed up. One of the sons being my my great grandfather, who thus wound up being a boy soldier at age 14, serving in an Ohio artillery regiment.
If that story is true, I wonder how common a scenario it was.
The story isn’t true. There were no restrictions on entering the country from Canada in the Civil War era. The only thing your ancestors could have been guilty of was evading the draft.
During the time of the Civil War, immigration (in terms of admission of aliens) was an entirely state matter. Different states had different rules. In New York, there was no processing center at all until 1855. Until that point, the only rule was that ship captains had to report immigrants and immigrants (like everyone else) had to pass through customs. Beginning in 1855, there was a central processing spot for immigrants known as Castle Garden (an island off Manhattan). So, for NY at least, during the Civil War I suppose it would have been a crime to arrive without passing through the processing center.
But that stuff only seems to apply to naval immigration. I don’t think people coming from Canada had to go to the island. I’m not sure how overland immigration worked, really.
In any case, since no one was really excluded at the time, it’s not clear why anyone would choose not to immigrate legally.
Hopefully someone that knows more about this will come along with more info.
Ah, that’s the story of my family. Apparently they went into Canada to avoid the war. That’s just rumor, wink-wink (that’s how it’s recounted to me).
Richard Parker, I guess that’s kind of why I asked. Barring the willingness to self-register, who was able to distinguish aliens from citizens? There were no green cards, and I don’t know that birth certificates were widely brandished. I just don’t know. How were illegals, legals, citizens, naturalized-citizens, free blacks, slaves, and everyone accounted for?
I don’t know the answer to the certificates question, though I know that courts issued all kinds of paperwork relating to immigration status.
I did find this explanation of overland immigration during the relevant period:
Marian L. Smith, The immigration and naturalization service (INS) at the U.S.-Canadian border, 1893-1993: an overview of issues and topics, Michigan Historical Review, 2000.
ETA: Actually, the article begins to answer some of the documentation questions further on. It is here .
So maybe the “liberal” argument of today is “Previously we had little in the way of laws and restrictions for immigrants, everyone was welcome, everyone became a legal citizen and this country prospered. So we should loosen the laws of today, make everyone welcome, and this country will continue to prosper.”
This argument of course leaves out the details that can be further debated on (financial aspect, terrorism, government programs, etc.) but it seems to be the only way one can compare the illegal immigration of today to all of the pre-1950s immigration.
For the most part, the “conservative” argument today isn’t much different, other than not providing a get-out-of-jail-free-card for current lawbreakers.