Coming up next, Albany Law SchoolProfessor EmeritusPaul Finkelman delivering a keynote address at a symposium focused on the history of immigration in america. Mr. Finkelman compares the roles of congress, states, and the president in developing immigration policy from the colonial period to modern day. This event is part of a twoday u. S. Capitol Historical Society symposium. Its about an hour and 15 minutes. For the keynote opening this particular symposium, we have professor finkelman. Again, those of you who come on a 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. But really 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 visiting professorship on human rights. Hell be speaking on a a nation of immigrants. The keynote is an opportunity to look at the theme in a broader sense. So hes going to be laying the groundwork for everything that were going to be discussing tomorrow. I hope youll all come back if you can tomorrow as well. One last thing before paul comes to the podium. We have a special lunch program. Something we dont do typically. Were going to have a speaker join us during the lunch period tomorrow so we can keep people in the room. Well have box lunches to make that easy for you. I think youll really enjoy it. If youre suspicious about what a living historian 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 at specific Historic Sites and so on. I think youll be really impressed by ron dukett interpreting tomorrow. Without further ado, Paul Finkelman. [applause] professor finkelman thank you very much. Its delightful to be here. I think its marvelous that we are doing this on cinco de mayo. 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 also 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 schoolbooks. 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. Kenny in 1958, republished in 1964, posthumously with an introduction by his Brother Robert kennedy and then republished again in 2008 with an introduction by his other brother, senator edward kennedy. The phrase appears, of course, in scholarly articles, popular journals, and popular media all the time. Most americans take pride in the notion that we are a nation of immigrants. The story of immigrants 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 is the history of america itself. This would even be true, of course, if you were focusing on nativeamericans 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 schoolbooks focused on the famous successful immigrants, andrew carnegie, Alexander Graham bell, whose name, of course, became synonymous with the telephone he invented, john ericsson, 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 keller, leo szilard, enrico fermi, while skipping over the postwar nazi immigrant wernher von braun. Day, immigrant heroes are more likely to be found in high tech. Andy grove from hungary, vinod dham, from india, invented the pentium chip without life itself would not be possible anymore, and, of course, sergey brin of russia, cofounder of google, which is, in fact, life itself. [laughter] professor finkelman alternatively, of course, we learned of the great entertainers, irving berlin, cary grant, greta garbo, sophia loren, zsa zsa gabor, and now the most recent entertainers, Natalie Portman from israel, Arnold Schwarzenegger from austria, dan akroyd from canada, and, of course, most important of all, Eddie Van Halen from the netherlands. There is the litany of sports figures, the first generation was actually children of immigrants, lou gehrig, joe dimaggio, hank greenberg. And, today, of course, we have the immigrants themselves, yao ming, serge fedorov, martina navratilova, wayne gretzky, and, of course, the single greatest athlete of our generation, mariano rivera. [laughter] professor finkelman who . The people from boston have spoken. [laughter] when wer finkelman 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. 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 they were 50 or more immigrant. And 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 so when we talk about politics, we talk about both the immigrants and the 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 halfcentury 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 advisors, 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 and president ial cabinets. And the numbers of grandchildren of immigrants who were raised in families where immigration matters is simply too big to count. This has always been the case. In the 1790s, there was senator Pierce Butler from ireland. And as we will learn tomorrow, senator Albert Gallatin from switzerland. In the mid 19th century, in the senate there was judah benjamin, peter soule, david, and carl schurz, all of whom were immigrants. In the 20th century we saw robert wagner, s. I. Hayakawa, Rudy Boschwitz and mel martinez serving in the senate. And this is only the skimming the easy names off the top. It would be too difficult to list all the house members which simply run out of time. In 1790, 10 of congress was foreignborn. 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. Americans, of course, have been proud of this. And this is part reflected by the nickname of the two great entrees to the United States, both ellis island and angel island were known as the golden door at the time that they were active and in subsequent history since. There is a good reason for this. Whatever else we may say in criticizing some aspects of American Culture and american society, the golden door is provided an enormous amount of Economic Opportunity as well as a safe haven for political and religious refugees from around the world. Emma lazarus home on the base poem on the base of the statue of liberty encapsulates the ideals and ideology of both the nation of immigrants and a golden door. Keep, ancient lands your storied pomp she cries with silent lips. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempesttossed to me, i lift my lamp beside the golden door for many newcomers, historically the sight of lady liberty was something they never forgot. My own grandparents and great aunts and uncles were called the 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. 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. So instead of going through ellis island, 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 plattsburgh, new york. One can hardly imagine a more dismal way to enter the United States. [laughter] professor finkelman and he crossed in as a tourist. 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 that he could come in to the United States. He came into 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 of greetings, world war i is now here. 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 8, 1918, he became a citizen under the amendatory act of may 1918 while stationed at camp gordon in georgia. So we are a nation of immigrants but not everybody came in according to the rules. Thus, i am the face of the illegal alien. [laughter] professor finkelman my father and mother, both born in new york city, were 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, there has always been, of course, the counter narrative. 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. At various 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 immigrants depress wages and threaten the incomes of nativeborn 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 candidates 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 naturalborn 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 would be the first child of an immigrant to become president of the United States while simultaneously being a serial spouse of immigrants. [laughter] professor finkelman 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 id 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 they are interconnected. When opponents of immigration the rules have , changed, making it more difficult for the huddled masses who are yearning to breathe free, to, in fact, become free and if they get here at all, to become citizens. Opposition to immigration, as ive noted, has been based on religion, ethnicity, race, and sometimes unabashed bigotry. Sometimes these sentiments, known in u. S. History as nativism, have been quite open. Sometimes they are 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 new immigrants were voting for the party of thomas jefferson. Similarly, in the 1840s and 1850s, the Nativist Movement culminating in the noNothing Party with its president ial campaign of 1856, again, did not want catholic immigration in part because a number of the nonothings, including their 1856 president ial candidate, Millard Fillmore had previously lost elections because they lost the catholic vote. Now, fillmore never understood 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. But perhaps that was his own limitation. The earliest example that i can find of antiimmigration sentiment comes from an outburst in governor William Bradfords diary in 1642. Bradford was the governor of the Plymouth Colony and claimed the population was being corrupted by recent immigrants who were, quote, wicked persons and profane people who had so quickly come over into this land and mixed amongst us. The religious men who began the community had come for religion sake and now they had these wicked people. Bradford was referring to the recent execution for beastiality of a young man, 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 by another who had heard of such things from someone in england when he was there and they kept cattle together. Thus, radford claimed grangers fatal behavior on recent immigrants who corrupted this young man living in plymouth. Bradford also noted that another young man had been recently executed for sodomy confessing that he long ago used it in england. Bradford concluded that this illustrated how one with the person may affect many and he urged residents to be careful of what servants they bring into the family. Bradford recorded the case in his diary, including various details about rangers behavior which i will not going to. Suffice to say granger confessed to having sex with various barnyard creatures as well as a wild turkey. [laughter] he was subsequently hanged and all the barnyard creatures were killed and thrown into a big pit. By the way, massachusetts magistrates were truly both huddled by what to do about the turkey and so they went in and shot three wild turkeys and through them in the pit to symbolically cleanse the society from