university of california at davis. he specializes in both criminal law and immigration law. i think as this conference afolds, we realized there is great and sad connection between criminal law and immigration law. in a variety of ways. i'm not sure how much you will touch on that today. jack did his undergraduate degree at wesley and and a law degree at the university of michigan. he went on to do a advanced law degree at yale. being, if i could paraphrase president kennedy in this context, having gotten a michigan education he went on to get a yale degree so he could be a success in life, which is of course what president kennedy said he was given an honorary degree at yale. recently co-edited a book, or cowritten a book on the 1965 immigration act, which is what he is going to talk about. i'm not going to say anymore because he can tell us all about it. professor chin: thank you for the introduction. thank you to the capital historical society. to talk today about the immigration and nationality act amendment of 196i-5. propositions about the act, one controversial, the other uncontroversial. i will begin with the uncontroversial when. that is that the immigration and nationality amendment of 1955 were the most effective -- 1965 for the most effective civil rights legislation since conception. i admit the civil rights act of 1964 was important, but more than 50 years after its passage the situation of african-americans and other minorities, with respect to employment, education, wealth fromealth, still is far that enjoyed by white. -- whites. the voting rights act of 1965 also revolutionary. it dramatically changed the political situation in many parts the country. , somers after its passage parts of it have been held unconstitutional by the supreme court. other parts are at greater risk -- grave risk. again, 50 years after the voter rights act, voter suppression is alive and well. these laws were landmarks. very important. they were not only in part. by contrast, the immigration and nationality act amendments of 1965 were completely successful. they were designed to bring race neutrality to the immigration stream. they did so. majority ofa super the immigrant stream was caucasians from your. -- europe. since 1955 a super majority of the immigrant stream has been asian, latino, africans, and other nonwhites from around the world. contributor to the passage of the 1965 act was the late john f. kennedy's posthumously published book, "a nation of immigrants" with an introduction by robert f kennedy. wereation he imagined immigrants were admitted not based on race, but based on individual characteristics such as connections to people in the u.s. or skills that were valued by the u.s. economy is on the verge of coming to pass. california, hawaii, new mexico, texas, and the district of columbia are a majority of minority jurisdictions. the united states as a whole, thanks to the changes in law and policy brought by the1965 act is expected to be majority minority by 2043. , at least to me that the 1965 act attacks entrenched racism the same weighty civil rights act did. racial selectivity in the immigration era began with the chinese >> kludge an act of 1882 -- chinese exclusion act of 1882. it is evident from history that racial considerations, not safe economic or political considerations were paramount. in supporting the act, senator miller of california exquisitely appealed to notions of racial inferiority. he said, it is not numbers that are needed, quality is more important than quantity. productplete man, the of free institutions and high civilization is worth more to the world than hundreds of barbarians. upon what other earache he can we justify the almost complete extermination of the indian, the original in all of these states. i believe that one such man as newton, franklin, or lincoln glorifies the creator of the world and benefits mankind than all of the chinese who have lived, struggled, and died on the banks. opponents of chinese exclusion the famous line from the declaration of independence -- we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain rights among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. supporters of chinese exclusion had a powerful response, senator grover for example pointed out the context towards the aborigines of this country, whom the founders discovered in much -- must be construed as missing a limit to be right upon them. him when they declared all men created equal and were in doubt with the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness, they undoubtedly meant all men like themselves and in a like manner, join the civil bonds of society. when they created it us -- created asylum, they undoubtedly meant all nations once they came, people similar to them. there was an explicit connection between racial policy with respect to indians, asians, and african-americans. senator jones, for example argued in 1882 -- does anybody pretend to tell me that is a blessing to this country that african-americans are here? it is no fault of ours they are here, it is no fault of theirs. it is the fault of the past generation. their presence here is a great misfortune today. of the adjustment of the relations of the two races socially and politically is no nearer a settlement now than it was the day sumter was fired upon. what encouragement we find in the history of our dealings with the negro race or in the dealings with the indian race to induce us to permit another race struggle? congress found these arguments persuasive. oscar great historian hedlund explained, by the end of the 19th century the pattern of racist practices and ideas seemed fully developed. the orientals were to be totally excluded. the negroes would live in a segregated enclaves. the indians would be confined to reservations as permanent wards of the nation. the white america policy was deep in the law. the naturalization act of 1790 was signed by washington as president, john adams as president of the senate, and thomas jefferson as secretary of state. it limited the privilege of naturalization to free white persons. a policy that remained in effect in one way or the other until 1952. 1922 a litigant appeared in the supreme court with a nonwhite litigant with a pretty good argument as the law was drafted there was a loophole that may be allowed him to naturalize. a certain category of people of color could become naturalized citizens. the court rejected the argument based on a strong policy of racial restriction. called theus court white naturalization policy a role in force from the beginning of the government. a part of our history as well as the law. of theto the structure national policy by a century of legislative acts and judicial decisions. as a question of interpreting the intent of congress the court was clearly right. the policy of chinese exclusion began in 1882 and was extended to other asian racial groups over time. , jewish immigrants, catholic immigrants were discouraged, not explicitly by race or religion, but by jeremy and -- gerrymandering designed therefore, by 1965, it can be thatthat the body of law the exclusion act ripped out by the roots was an integral part of u.s. racial policy. so, that is the uncontroversial claim, at least in my mind. the 1965 immigration act was an amazingly successful civil rights law. here is a controversial claim. many very thoughtful scholars and commentators have looked at the development of a 1965 law and concluded that the diversification of the immigrant stream that resulted was an unintended consequence. it was unwelcome. the law was not intended to make a substantive change to the white demographics of the stream.t erica leahy wrote, it abolished the immigrant quotas, but lawmakers till -- still expressed desire to immigrate from europe. indeed, all racial hierarchy was not explicitly written into the law as in 1924, it remains deeply embedded in the 1965 ac t's intent. liberals in congress believe --t opening is the attic , was notn principle the same as in practice. far from threatening to ethnically change the nation, the bill would as a practical matter produce a national origin system of immigration without offensive quotas. theodore white called the 1965 act the revolution he and most thoughtless of society. roger dale claimed that if congress have fully understood the consequences, it would not have passed. my controversial claim is that this is not the best view of the evidence, that congress it passed then law in 1965, he was putting u.s. immigration policy on a genuinely race neutral basis, and the chips would fall where they may. i have evidence for this. the first is votes in congress. with my calling at the university of connecticut, i have done an analysis of the rolebill based on local -- call votes. we believe that the immigration act is a close cousin of the civil rights act and the voting rights act. even though there was an election in 1964 between the civil rights act and the other two acts, 196 individual representatives voted yes on all three bills. of the roll call in the 89th congress, the one that mash-up matched up most closely with respect to the individual votes for against was the voting rights act. social scientists have developed fools to evaluate members of congress based on their right, ,eft and racial ideology views looking at their career voting records. based on these measures, virtually the same ideological coalition supported and opposed all three measures. another important vote in congress was on the immigration act of 1990, which increased the number of visas available for family sponsored and employment-based immigration. the diverse thing of the 1965 , 1990 act wasby on the table. by increasing the number of the visas, -- -- congressman bachus is. i think it is perfectly plausible to claim that the 89th congress was at least as civil 101st oriented as the congress. congress in 1965 would have been as untroubled by more nonwhites in the immigrant stream as they were in 1990. i think there is good reason to believe that the voting rights act and the civil rights act were genuinely antiracist bills. they were not modern civil rights bills as we would understand them today. anti-gay animus is clear in those bills as it is in the 1965 immigration act, for example. , sothey were antiracist this part of my argument suggests that being a close cousin of the voting rights act and civil rights act allows the inference that the immigration act was not hypocritical. the second piece of evidence that i offer to you is in 1965, for the first time in ,mmigration context, antiracism race neutrality was an explicit rationale for the winning side in the debate. argued that the quota system was contrary to our basic rentals as a nation. paul krebs said that we must learn to judge each individual by his own worth and value he can bring to our nation. these arguments have been almost completely absent from previous debates in congress over -- even when congress was liberalizing the law slightly. the two major reforms before 1965 were in 1943, when 105 chinese were led to immigrate and in 1962 when nationalization was made to include every country, including japan, including a token number of visas. explicitly more measures, pragmatic reforms. even in respect to that, one of the interesting things to me about these law is that they did not go far enough even to achieve their geopolitical goals. 105 chinese were allowed to immigrate, and someone said in congress, hey, indians are our allies, too. winning world war ii seems important, so why don't we just let 100 indians and, as well? , we have anas important policy of racial restriction and we will not allow indians in. the move to allow indians and failed, even to win world war ii. so in 1943, almost nobody on the winning side said anything unkind about racism in principle. 1952 said,arran in for example, we have to be realistic and recognize that there are some indigestible blocks of people in the united states. in 1965, many members of congress argued that racism has no place in american law. in 1952, senator mccarran, i think accurately, said a push for racial equality would be the kiss of death for the limited reforms that restrictionist in congress were allowing to go forward. explicit5, we have antiracist rationales articulated by the winning side, that is something new and i think it is significant. the third point is that there is a lot of evidence at the time that people knew that demographic change was likely as a result of the law. i get this from legislative history and contemporary media reports, that taking out racial restrictions, taking out racial gerrymandering would lead to racial diversity. edward kennedy said that the thele who comprise immigration, the type this bill would give preference to, are relatively well educated and well-to-do and familiar with american ways. he knew there would be new immigration. media reports were to the same effect. 1963 which just predates the debate on the floor, former congressman and future appellate judge marion t bennett wrote a book called "american immigration policies," and when he discussed immigration reform, he said that china and india would ultimately be the immigration -- european successor. kennedy saidident the were 650 million people in communist china alone. the possibility that they might not take advantage of relaxed immigration restrictions is remote. in 1965, "u.s. news and world report "reported on america's wealth -- melting pot geared they said that these -- pot. they said that restrictions against orientals and indians are wiped out. ofone has predicted the size asians to enter the u.s., but it is predicted to be large. reported,ngeles times what is ahead is an almost more diverse mix of populations, favoring italian, spanish and greek, inviting the oriental and african. negropid rise of the population shows that we will have a pluralistic society. even the exception often support of this role. --1966, and american region the american legion came to the conclusion that they would not support the bill, and in an article they explained why. i said would not be any change in the demographics of the immigrant stream, but then they said that all of the articles in the mainstream media which suggest that would be dramatic alteration in the sources of immigration are a bit of faking. congress understood that the structure of this law had to make sources of immigration, family sponsored immigration and employment-based immigration. the two main sources of these is -- visas for people who might come here. it was clear that congress understood that nonwhites would take advantage of both the resources. robert kennedy, for example, testified for the attorney general favor of the bill, about the problems americans had in "inging in a relative who was italian, spanish or portuguese, indian or filipino." i don't think there was any question that italians and eastern european were very important politically to get this bill on the radar screen and get it through, but people understood at the time that they would not be the only beneficiaries. as for employment-based immigration, there had been a 1962 law that offered special and sense of -- incentives to engineers to come to the united states, and it was created as an exception to the quotas. asians and others could come under this law without respect to any sort of quota limitations. because oflar wrote, the 1962 law, immigration of european engineers increased by 23%, but that of asians increased by 182%. skilled asian aggression has a remarkably high elasticity in -- liberalvable modernizing of the decision. my idea is not that congress should have known what is obvious in retrospect, that once we reduce racial restrictions, different people will come to the united states then came before. my argument is that congress actually did know that racial light versification -- diversification would be a consequence of law. i don't mean to suggest that the many people who disagree with my view are just ignorant. there is some contrary evidence. it,ll talk with you about but i don't think it is compelling. the most prominent piece of were be noat there demographic change, at least is a 1964d to asians, prediction by attorney general robert kennedy testifying in a committee, and as described by "fortune" magazine. he said that 5000 asian immigrants might come the first year, afterwards which immigration from that source would virtually disappear. which, -- that is a quote from robert kennedy. scores of media articles and academic books cite this testimony as evidence that asian immigration was expected to go down as a result of the 1965 act. this is a complete misinterpretation of the technical issue that robert kennedy was testifying about. he was testifying about the interaction of two special rules. and 1965, because of the monroe doctrine, western hemisphere immigration was numerically unlimited. as many people from the western hemisphere as wanted to come to the united states, to put it more starkly in connection with current immigration policy debate, as many mexicans as wanted to come to the united states could come to the united notes with absolutely numerical limitation. there were other kinds of economic and health restrictions, but no numerical limitations. however, to prevent the immigration of asians, there was a special asian racial attribution rule that all people of asian racial ancestry, wherever they were born or citizen, were charged to the .uota of their homeland the way these will work together was that if we had a native citizen and resident of brazil who was of german ancestry, that person was treated as a brazilian, and like all of the brazilians could come to the united states without numerical limitation before 1965. if we had a resident of brazil who is a japanese ancestry, that person was treated as japanese, they could come to the united states only if they had been able to get one of the visas allocated to japan every year. robert kennedy was saying that illumination of this racial attribution rule would mean that -- elimination of this racial attribution rule would mean that people of racial ancestry would be able to take advantage of this rule. 5000 of them would come to the , to thehemisphere united states, if the rule pass. that worldwideng immigration would be 5000 people per year, as many people have wrongly claimed. asian immigration in 1964 was over 21,000, it averaged 15,000 or year in the 1950's. to say that 5000 would come act came into effect has to be wrong. the most amount of piece of evidence that there was expected to be no change to the demographics of the stream turns out to be part of a complex piece of the law. thatrs of congress thought there would be little nonwhite immigration. emanuel cellar, a prime mover of the bill, said the following -- mr. chairman, claim has been made that the bill would bring in courts of africans and nation. this is an answer that falls charge. in, just likeome everyone else. there will be shipped to countries other than those in western europe. immigrants from asia and africa will have to compete to get in, which itself will hold none -- the numbers down. you'll not comparatively be many asians are africans in this country. in asia and, people africa have relatively few relatives here. they have few family ties here. oka, the longtime japanese-american assistance league officer and longtime advocate for immigration reform insisted that fears of a flood from immigration from the orient were groundless. were reservedas for family reunification, and he agreed that the small amount of asians already in the united states would be taking advantage of them. he said that -- secretary of state dean rusk commented, any increase in the volume of immigration would be rather limited against the actual volume of asian immigration. so what do we make of these? maybe these were of asians signed to get a bill passed. d.c.,ot from washington, many of you are. does anyone ever say anything less than the full truth when they're trying to get a bill passed? is that legal? can they do that? that is a possibility. maybe these were honest predictions that turnout to be wrong without being essential assumptions without which the bill would not have passed. what i want to say is that in proposeext -- i want to that in the context of the bill and the context of the discussion, they were sincere claims and they have proved to be accurate. that constitutes an influx or flood? that evenoka argued though a million people of asian descent came in at one time, they would still not equal the number of asiatics in this country, and it is less than one half of 1%. so the doubling of a tiny number is still a tiny number. argued that an increase of 2% and the italian-american proportion of the total u.s. population over a course of years wouldn't constitute an alteration of the epic makeup of the country -- ethnic makeup of the country. i think the evidence the demographics was not a huge concern would sit -- was suggested by the limited firewall that the bill didn't create. that was the current country. as edward kennedy explained, the bill will not inundate america with immigrants from anyone area , or the most deprived areas of asia or africa. bill andiginal 1965 continuing to this day in the law are per country limitations so that no one country, regardless of size or historical connections to the united states, can take more than a certain share of the visas available each year. 10% was the original structure. but that doesn't preclude, for example, mexico, china, india, fromhilippines and cuba taking 50%. and so it is a very small restriction, very small restriction compared to what existed under the prior policy. millionese terms that a per day is not a huge influx, at least with respect to asian americans, asian immigrants. they're still has not been a huge influx. proportion --e compared to the population of asia compared to world population, the percentage of asians in the immigrant stream is small. population isld asian, 5% of the u.s. population is asian. it is still a small group, and it is still the case that the united states is a long way from becoming a distinctively asian country. so, that is the basic background of my argument, that the diversification of the immigrant stream was not an intended consequence of congress in 1965, it was one that they understood might happen and they did not stand in the way of. there are a number of ways in which the 1965 act was in perfect, there are a number of ways in which people with legitimate claims to consideration by the united ,tates were not accounted for but i'm going to hold those for the moment and ask if anyone has any questions. >> what was lbj's role in the passage of the 1965 act in comparison to his role in the civil rights act? >> i think he supported it and in octobersigned it of 1965. i do think this was an act that was more -- it was happening more and congress than it was dictated by the administration. >> a strategic question. i agree with the thrust of your talk, but did everyone -- anyone ever say at the time, if you do not see this lies changing anything in reality, why is it so important to pass it? it is completely clear that there were geopolitical considerations, as well. year, andt was a war there was a lot of discussion of theow the remnants national origins quota system, particularly as they applied to the third world, were used by communist propagandist. it is completely clear that geopolitics was a driver of the bill, as well as domestic as principles of fairness and equality. but, there were lots of people who said as scare tactics that there could be hundreds of millions of chinese immigrants to the united states. one individual, one witness testified that by 2000 there might be 479 million chinese in the united states. in 1952, these sort of wild fears of racial invasion, the yellow peril arguments and fortification arguments worked to structure some kind of quota. by 1955 they had failed do so. surely someone might have asked the proponents, usually when you get new legislation the people happy about, the proponents talk about all of the wonderful things that will result. here you have a paradox of this major legislation that its proponents say, often with a straight face, it won't change anything substantially. deanen a manual seller and said in thehey context of a situation that is already changing, that the 1952 laws and efforts at restriction had come undone with individual ,oss and waivers and exceptions and so the asian immigration, for example what was 10 times the quota. the quota was 2000 per year, and there was never a year when it was close to that between 1952 and 1965. , given thatid was the efforts at restriction imagined by the 1952 law have thatdy failed, the changes come along after that will not necessarily be that much more significant. nobody was saying it would stay just the same as it is. mentioned that immigration from the western hemisphere was not limited after 1924, and you also said that only white people could apply for naturalization in selecting 52. and latinos and mexicans other lens allowed to apply for naturalization before 1952? >> yes. there has been some discussion at this conference about the , andcation of the 1719 act naturalization of white people, and what to we do with armenians and arabs, what do we do with japanese and filipinos? mexicans had a tradition of being allowed to naturalize from the peace treaty after the mexican-american war. were treated as white. again, a lot of details of change over time, but in 1924, the naturalization act was extended to persons of races indigenous to the western hemisphere. mexicans have always been allowed to natural size -- naturalize. at least in the report cases. engineers were privileged. engineers, or was someone in the house of representatives -- we need engineers, i think. point, there was a special doll to allow -- bill to allow special privilege to sheepherders. oddly enough, senator mccarron of nevada was a sheep farmer, but i am sure that was a coincidence. 1962 law was, i think, legitimate concern about the economy. that we wanted people to make --nomic contributes contributions the country. again, one of the marks of a i have toker is that cut off the questioning and answering. tv"oin "american history next weekend for a live conference on reconstruction and the legacy of the civil war. included cute -- reconstruction in the north. you'll also hear conversations on the return of the confederate veteran and the origins of the lost cause. it is hosted by the civil war institute at gettysburg college in gettysburg, pennsylvania. it begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. reconstruction and the legacy of the civil war, only on "american istory tv." this sunday, on american artifacts, the future the political cartoons of nina allender. she contributed more than 150 cartons supporting the campaign for women's suffrage. "our hat is ined and this cartoon is representatives of her belief that women needed to be presented with authority, strength and control. image that she called the allender girl. she saw these images in the suffragettes. often times, political cartoonists would mock the separatists by making them look haggard or fraud in some way, and she instead turned that on its head and creates a useful, invigorated and intelligent woman. you can see in this image in particular, she is slender and her skirt was above her anchors -- angles, which was unusual for the time. her hands on her hips, and she throws her hat into the ring of politics. comical images of a progressive, a democrat and a republican, all looking in wonderment at this woman standing strongly there saying i am moving in. the importance of this cartoon is also that, as a mentioned before, the naturalization party was founded for women, and they changed the name to the women's party in june of 1916. you can see the predicting what is about to happen within their party. the woman's party was an timesant name, because at they grappled with the idea of going beyond lobbying for federal amendment to actually becoming an active political , in the same vein as a democrat or republican. >> learn more about nina allender and her political >> on lectures in history,facts" georgetown university professor maurice jackson teaches a class ,n the philosophy of web dubois an author and civil rights activist in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. his early life, role as an educator, and relationship with other activists at the time. the class is about an hour. maurice jackson: today we discussed the works of web dubois. we just entered african-american history month, and carter woods said we established this for three reasons. one was because of frederick douglass' bi