Public opinion has changed over the past five decades, and emphasizes the difference between immigrants, and refugees. Her class is about an hour. Today were talking about topic 18, which is South East Asian refugee migrations. If you have been following the news, in recent years, i imagine that you like me, of found it difficult to ignore the topic, of refugees. This is an in edge, refugees experience, fling communist vietnam, in 1975. In many ways, it reminds us of images we might see on the news today. Its hard to ignore the human stories, from families perishing at sea, refugees are suffocating and me trucks, theyre crowding onto leaky boats, theyre drowning the bodies of those who are unable to cross to safety, and washing up on monetary beaches. They have been in the news for the past few years, related to the crisis in syria, but refugees are being uprooted by conflicts all around the world. Were not talking about refugees coming from syria, but from other war torn regions. Especially in the past couple years, it has been very difficult to ignore the public response to refugees. Refugee resettlement, like so many other topics today, has become a polarizing topic. On one hand, opposition to refugees has been fierce, and even hostile. Politicians, at the world will state and federal level, i think that refugees to terrorism, and have pursued anti red refugee policies in the name of National Security. The most famous of these measures, is president Donald Trumps executive orders, which grounded the federal Refugee Program to a halt in 2017. His imposition which is known as the refugee ban shortly after taking office was the sharpest and political debates of his presidency. As part of the effort to limit the amount of foreigners to enter the United States. To ensure politicians are not the only want to take action on the issue of refugees, theres been instances of vigilante anti refugee activism. Some of it potentially violent and focusing on muslim refugees. For example for example in tennessee, there was rallies held by neonazis and white supremacist. It is hard to ignore the fact, that there is been a tremendous amount of public support for refugees. The january 2017 executive orders, prompted thousands of americans, to protest, and facilitate legal aid in airports across the country. Community groups organized rallies, and service projects, to raise awareness of the issue of refugees. People put signs declaring their support for refugees, on their front lawns, or above their church entryways, or even on stickers on their laptops. Now i am a historian, and my job is to remind you, that we have to have some historical perspective. The truth is, in many ways, we have been here, before. I have already pointed to this image of a boat, this is an image from 1975, but it could very well be an image of people fleeing by boat today. We have seen these images before. We have seen a vicious eruption of anti refugee sentiment before. Weve seen this response before. We have seen and saudi but cultural and religious difference before. We worry about refugees and National Security before. Now i am frustrated a little bit, by our contemporary conversation. Because so much of our contemporary conversation, is not paying attention, to our history. And lessons we can learn from the past. Especially you dont hear a lot about asian refugees. You might hear a little bit more about jewish refugees, not that much about asian refugees. The case, this entire semester, and that Asian American history, is american history. And this is true for refugee history as well. So today, im going to talk about asian refugee migrations, that took place for decades ago. And this refugee migration change the course of Refugee Status and the decades to come. Am i talk about refugees, known as youve gone didnt asian refugees, and Southeast Asian refugees. They arrived in the 1970s, and 19 eighties. Some of them as late as the 21st century. And the migration of these asian refugees, was a turning point in several different ways. Number one, and the 1970s, refugees or accepted, for new reasons. For the first time, the United States wasnt just accepting refugees because they oppose communism, United States was accepting refugees on the basis of emerging humanitarian commitments, to human rights. Number two, during this period, refugees or accepted and resettled in a new way. Were talking about a huge refugee migration here. Over 1 million South East Asian refugees came to the United States in the last couple decades in the 20th century. And that refugee migration, and the amount of work it took to coordinate, both overseas and domestically, made government officials realize, that they needed to have a more systematic, and organized, and permanent way to respond to refugee crises. In part, because of Southeast Asian refugees in particular, that we see the emergence of a push for new legislation. Which culminated in the 1980 refugee act. This act is still in force today. Well talk about the details of that act later. Southeast asian migrations matter. These asian refugees, or at the beginning of a new wave. Of refugees. A new refugee population. They were the first group, of non white, non european, non Christian Refugees to be resettled in the United States. Well talk a bit about that later, this was first huge group of non white non european, not Christian Refugees. And these refugees were so different that it was a source of great anxiety for americans. In truth is refugees ended up being a foreigner, for refugee populations that would arrive in United States. So these refugees in many ways accepted the groundwork, for how the United States would settle refugees. But also were harbinger for what would come. In some asian refugees, they had asian refugees in Southeast Asian refugees. There were three major changes in the 1970s, a profound change in the u. S. , and its approach to refugees who would change for decades to come. Have any of you, if you like literature youll know that, we have been talking about asian refugees, in fact the history of vietnamese refugees has received a lot of attention in the last few years, because of this book sympathizer. Which one a Pulitzer Prize in 2016. You are reading an excerpt from this novel, this week and we will discuss it next week. He himself the author was a refugee, and he is wrist fact reflected a lot of what it means to be a refugee, and the writer. And to tell his story. In an essay he published in the new york times, he observed the following. Many people, have characterized my novel, the sympathizer, as an immigrant story. And he is an immigrant no. My novel is a war story and i and not an immigrant im a refugee, who like many others have never ceased being a refugee in some corners of my mind. He continues, immigrants are more reassuring, than refugees, because theyre incident and point to their story. However they arrived whether they are documented or not their desires for a new life, can be absorbed into the American Dream or into the european narrative of civilization. By contrast, refugees are zombies of the world. The ended who rise from dying states, to march or swim towards our borders in endless waves. So lets talk and think about this, what do you think he means, by saying that immigrants are different from refugees, raise your hands. There is a choice, that immigrants take, to build their own new future, where with the refugees crisis that we see now, there is often like a push, that forces them to leave their own countries, and migrate somewhere else just because, of a failure of government. For reasons that they dont have control over themselves. Absolutely, so there is a forced migration that characterizes refugee migrations rather than immigrants who as you point out how more of a choice. I also think with refugees its when their home country and the turmoil stops in their home country it would be okay to go back where in immigrant came to this country by their own choice, for whatever the reason is and so for refugee theres we welcome in because we are helping them until they go back, but with an immigrant that same thing isnt there. So the be the ability to be able to return to your home country, we talk about how a lot of immigrants migrate to United States or elsewhere in them returned home. But many of these people dont have an option. Thats an important statement. Because they have been forced out, through due to war, persecution, Natural Disaster any number of reason. That make their life in their previous country impossible. They would not survive. So i think youre exactly right. Migrations is characterized for need for survival. What do you think he means when he says that refugees are zombies, of the world. I thought that was evocative. Zombies of the world. The undid who rise from dying states. In a way, they are the only vessels of culture rest of these giant states, and its hard to get someone to completely forfeit their culture because it is part of their identity. So as long as they live the culture lives. Okay so i think its powerful, they are often vessels of their culture, they are leaving desperate situations where they would have otherwise died physically, and also their community may have died, their culture may have died, and so this idea of people, leaving dying states in circumstances a profound dislocation and trauma is powerful. I think the language of zombies is powerful, because it reminds us of an expiration, the violence the fear, the people leave, that pushes people to migrate. And i think that is important to for us to remember, that this violence, the suffering that this persecution, that forced them to migrate doesnt just in their. But continues to shape their lives for years to come. So when called attention to, he paid attention to the two most important aspects of refugees and what distinguishes them from immigrants. Number one there they are involuntary migrants, forcibly removed by their home through political conflict, Natural Disaster or other extraordinary circumstances. And they are often very traumatized people. Zombies. Thats what he would say. Interesting thing about refugees, is they are powerful in our mythology of american exceptional to history think about the palm and the statue of liberty new colossus in it, they announced the statue of liberty as the mother of exiles which is giving your tile youre tired, your poor your huddled masses, send these the homeless to me, i lift my lamp beside the door. How many of you have heard those lines before . And the fact that those lines are on the statue of liberty which is a symbol of immigration to United States its very powerful it really centers the United States the idea behind it its a haven for people who are exiled and thats the history of the United States tells it does tell a difference though or more complicated story in truth we havent always had humanitarian impulse to welcome refugees. Usually we have only done so when its in our own interest usually weve been more inclined to actually reject refugees than to accept them and tomorrow the words of historian eric tang often refugees who have been accepted to settlement here are not only resettled but they are deeply unsettled by the experience of forced migration. To give you an overview of what ill talk about today i will give you a little bit of background about american refugees settlement policy after the second world war. And im going to use that to set up why the 1970s were such an important period of change thats what a small group of you thats when a lot of asian refugees arrived in United States, and they were followed by a larger group of refugees Southeast Asian refugees which are, also described as indo asian refugees, they from cambodia laos indonesia. I will talk about the crisis that developed overseas but focus mostly on developments that took place here in the United States how the general public feud Southeast Asian refugees and how they were admitted and resettled. And how southeast refugees themselves tell stories about their experience. I will talk about why it matters, and i will conclude with some discussion about how southeast Asian Americans today, are calling on the refugee history to, intervene in Public Policy debates. Okay any question so far . So lets begin, with background about Refugee Resettlement in the United States during the 20th century. During the 19 forties fifties and sixties, most refugees came from europe, with the exception of cuban refugees. Most were white, and either jewish or christian. During this period, right after the second world war, and during the cold war, commitment to opposing communism, really shaped how the United States determined which refugees to accept. But during and after world war ii the United States changed its immigration policies to accept people displaced by war. These refugees were known as displaced persons. They benefited from the landmark legislation of the time. Which was the 1948 displaced persons act. That act eventually inspired, and in 1953 was replaced, by the Refugee Relief act, which helped other european refugees, including italians, greeks and dutch refugees. In 1956, we see cold war developments in europe also shape a new refugee population, and you groups of people seeking refuge, the hungarian revolution occurred, and Freedom Fighters as they were popularly known, or welcome to the United States. And they were accepted under what is called kabul tower. Which allowed the United States to accept refugees and circumvent its own immigration laws which at this time if you recall were pretty restrictive throughout much of the cold war, the executive branch used a loophole and immigration law, the pearl power, to admit refugees want to deemed in the National Interest to do so. Most of those refugees admitted, were fleeing leftwing or communist regimes. A 1959 cuban exiles began to arrive. The first cubans who arrived, or bautista sympathizers, who were feed reprisals from the castro government. For the first time, because of cubas proximity to the United States it was a country of first refuge refugees did not go to another country and then apply to resettlement the United States. They went straight to the United States. Especially to places like miami. The policy for cuban refugees at this time, was such that these refugees would be given asylum, as part of a bigger anti castro, anti communist policy. Another of requirements, were imposed on these early refugee populations. These requirements illustrated how the United States pursued its own cold war sub interest. First, as ive already mentioned, they offered a special welcome, for people fleeing communism. Second, a preference was given to refugees who were professionals were highly refugees or scaled. This was in keeping with other immigration laws, while welcoming displaced people it is seen as a humanitarian act, the humanitarian efforts were often centered on the needs of the United States. To help her. These images, feature effigies who arrived in the United States, during this period. Photo on the left, features displaced persons, were registering at fort ontario refugee center. Which housed 1000 people displaced by world war ii. And the photo on the rights, as the cover of Time Magazine. 1957. Featuring their chosen person of the year in 1956. The person of the year in 1956 was, the hungarian freedom fighter. Lets think about this. What do you think this image on the right tells us about how americans viewed, hungarian Freedom Fighters during this time . Think about what it means, for Time Magazine to choose hungarian Freedom Fighters, as their person of the year. And to present them in this way . What does this magazine tell us about how americans viewed hungarian refugees . Definitely in a positive way. Not like a lot different how we would view syrian refugees. Really positive. You could see, his face so bold so serious. Noble. There was enormous enthusiasm, were welcoming people, who were seen as fighting for freedom. Who were seen as allies in the United States war against communism. I think its a really important image to have in mind, how refugees can be celebrated, and how the celebration of refugees converges powerfully, with american interests. In particular this moment the cold war. Later in the 20th century, the cold war continue to shape the United States his stance towards refugees. Populations, the last quarter of the 20th century saw a major shift in the World Refugee populations. In 1964, a Refugee Affairs expert at the World Council of churches, declared we are now faced with the problem of refugees who are by and large not white and non christian. It remains to be seen, how we will react. Americans were worried about how the United States would handle these new refugees. One pastor in minnesota explained, many problems will arise, because of the new influx of people to america. As a result of new people coming from different cultures and different backgrounds. How would these new immigrants we accept today ask . Government leaders, also worry about this new immigrant population. During a congressional hearing, shortly after the fall of saigon, julia taft, was part of the inter task force. Never before in the history of this country, mister chairman has so many people from different cultures, ethnic and religious backgrounds, be introduced in American Society in such a short time. What scent these refugees apart from previous refugee populations, not simply that they were racially, ethnically and religiously different. But more so that these did not have a community of people in the United States already, to welcome them. So who were these new refugees . Amid the contemporary debate about muslim refugees, from syria and somalia, theres been little attention paid to the fact that the United States, has been resettling muslims for a long time. And it has been since the 1970s. The first accepted for resettlement were asian uganda and refugees. They had been expelled from uganda. They were resettled in the United States, and also the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Beginning in 1972. These ugandan asian refugees marked a turning point, and that they were quite different from their refugee predecessors. There are religiously diverse, identifying as muslim, also hindus, seek and christian. One big question worth asking, how did it go . All refugee later was a history professor, also wrote a report on the brown diaspora. You notice differences where a cause of anxiety. He noted that some problems did arise, for example, a strictly vegetarian rahm and, was given a work and up poultry processing plant, which did not go so well. Point out to produced significant psychological and emotional strain, and though he praised the good intentions of the sponsors, and voluntary agencies, they said they had to be a better understanding of the needs of refugees. Overall though, he said that you and asian refugees had a positive experience. I mention uganda in asian refugees, because they really set the stage, for a larger refugee population. That arrived in the 1970s. A lot of the Lessons Learned from uganda asian refugees informed how these groups handled South East Asian refugees. Shortly after the arrival of uganda asian refugees, another Larger Population ride as a result of war in Southeast Asia. To give you some context of what is happening in Southeast Asia the time. In 1975 communist government took control of vietnam, cambodia and laos and this initiated the migration of thousands of people, fleeing for their lives. The American Public tended to see these refugees as a single group. Frequently referred to as the indo chinese. That category gives some differences within the population. These were several different ethnic groups, coming from different countries, speaking different languages, having different religions, different class backgrounds, political orientations and more. What united them, was the experience of war. The trauma of war, the forced migration produced by war. And the experience, of having to create a new life in the United States. After experience being the war. These refugees arrived in several waves. The first occurred during the United States military involvement in the vietnam war. Which began in 1965, lasted a decade. But 1971, the war and caused considerable violence and economic political and cultural damage. It had was displaced by 1971 6 million refugees, in south vietnam. And 700,000 refugees from laos. Later, in the follow saigon in the spring of 1975, theyre withdrawal of American Military course forces caused another outpouring of refugees. And response to this immediate crisis, president gerald ford gave the green light to admit 200,000 vietnamese refugees. Some of them were evacuated, through the help of American Military forces. Others, one on their own, and were taken into protective custody by the United States. These vienna means refugees, in 1975, where placed in several military run refugee camps, military bases, here in the United States. And they stay there until sponsors could assist their resettlement elsewhere. Now is 1976 began, americans thought, they were done with the refugee crisis they handled those couple hundred thousand refugees that went to the military run refugee camps. The crisis was only beginning to heat up at this point. Violence and political conflict in Southeast Asia, continue to escalate, and continue to super new refugee migrations. For example, in cambodia, vietnamese invasion of 1978, but the downfall of the removal of pol pot, during his three and a half years of power, the compare rouge killed 1. 7 million people. Which was about 21 of the cambodian population. With full pot not in power, approximately half 1 million component people who managed to survive his regime, sought refuge in near by thailand. In addition, 122,000 cambodian refugees, join them in thailand, between 1980 and 1986. In vietnam, there was another outpour of refugees, known famously as the boat people. These people escaped by sea, they were people who had formally been political military or cultural leaders and south vietnam, some of them were ethnic minorities, were fleeing persecution. But 160,000 went to china, while tens of thousands took to the oceans, and made their way to other places in Southeast Asia, including thailand, malaysia, indonesia, and the philippines. They sailed on boats, that we hardly see where the sometimes. And then estimated 25 to 50 died at sea. If they were lucky to make it to land, sometimes they were forced back to see, by governments. Like thailand and malaysia. That refused to accept them, and take responsibility. Those refugees who were fortunate enough to live on and make it to a refugee camp, lived in squalid conditions, very difficult conditions in thailand and elsewhere. And by the middle of 1979 nearly 100,000 vietnamese boat people were in malaysia and hong kong. So far i only talked about refugees from vietnam, and cambodia, but i should also mention what are known as meng and allow refugees. This is an image, which is a traditional monk story cloth quelled. A lot of stories about the war have been told through this traditional art form. So looking at this image, what do you see . What do you notice . What story of war does it tell . Do you see any depictions of war here . Anyone notice . And i think its interesting that the spanning of technology is really depicted in this depiction of war. I see sort fighting, but then i also see planes, which is a funny thing to see embroidered on a quilt. Im also just interested in the dear to the left, slurping at the river. Its a nice juxtaposition of how war, comes into a landscape of the landscape still functions as his, and be cool to see an aftermath quelled of what would happen. Absolutely. It caught attention to some key details. You see, a river. This river represents the mekong river. What border laos and thailand. And you see the airplanes, the helicopters, you see is fascinating juxtaposition of rural life, and war. You see these little boxy buildings, which could represent either refugee camps, or the military sites, where among troops organized. You see people in a line, all walking. In the same direction. Fleeing perhaps for safety. This represents, manga experiences during the secret war, and their subsequent migration out of laos into thailand. The United States worked with the meng and allow people in their fight against communist during the secret war in laos. In the 1960s. With the assistance of the cia, and the green berets, general vying pow, a manga leader and tens of thousands of meng shoulders which he commanded, were the front line the fence of wording off the communist offense until the american evacuation in 1973. The staggering cost of their sacrifice during this period, is really important to know. Throughout 13 years of fierce guerrilla warfare, estimates claimed one in four soldiers, approximately 17,000 people died. And some of the soldiers that died, were teenagers. Quite young. The secret warrants are the new phase in 1973, when the United States signed a peace accord with north vietnam. And evacuated all the American Military leaders from laos. But 18,000 soldiers were left behind. Some dispersed through the countryside, some joined the general army, and 1975, vying pow and some military leaders were airlifted by the cia out of laos. But most people were less fortunate. Of the 10,000 that fled the headquarters, only a small fraction were evacuated by the United States. Thousands of people embarked on the treacherous westward exodus to thailand. Carrying their positions on their back, families traveled by foot. Through the jungle and journey