>>Why do you think that the United States is more welcoming of
>>immigrants than Australia? The proportion of the foreign-born in
>>Australia is double that in the United States:
>
>From having been there, gazing at pedestrians on the streets and
>finding them a lot less "diverse" than those of American cities, and
>having talked to Australians while there about the country's
>historical attitudes towards outsiders, which were not welcoming.
>When we were in Australia, a story broke about a cabinet minister
>quoting Howard as saying there were too many Asians on the streets
>of Australian cities. Having seen fewer Asians there than when I
>walk out my door on just about any day, I was surprised.
It depends on where you landed in Australia: "The State with the largest number of overseas born (1,474,987 people) was New South Wales. Western Australia had the highest proportion of overseas born residents (26.9%) excluding other territories (29.4%)" ("Australia's Cultural Diversity," <http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/cultural/index-Diversit.html>). Also, New York City isn't exactly typical of the United States.
The proportion of Asians in the Australian population is much higher than that in the US population: "People of Asian descent or birth constitute about 7 percent of the population [of Australia]; their countries of origin include China, Vietnam, India, the Philippines, and Malaysia. People of Middle Eastern origin make up an estimated 1.9 percent of the [Australian] population" ("Australia," <http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568792_2/Australia.html>); and "In March 2002, 12.5 million Asians and Pacific Islanders lived in the United States, representing 4.4 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population" ("The Asian and Pacific Islander Population in the United States: March 2002," <http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-540.pdf>).
Here are some highlights of US immigration history concerning Asians:
1882: the Chinese Exclusion Act: the first significant law restricting immigration 1908: the Gentlemen's Agreement: Japan agrees to restrict the emigration of Japanese male laborers into the United States in exchange for the integration of Japanese school children in San Francisco and the right of family members of immigrants to enter the United States 1913 (California), 1917 (Arizona), 1921 (Washington and Louisiana), 1922 (New Mexico), 1923 (Idaho, Montana, Oregon): Alien Land Laws, prohibiting "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from buying land or leasing it for longer than three years 1922: Ozawa v. U.S.; the Supreme Court rules that Takao Ozawa is ineligible for citizenship because of his "Mongolian" ancestry 1923: U.S. v Bhagat Singh Thind: it declares Indians ineligible for naturalized citizenship. 1924: the National Origins Act: the act establishes a national quota system for immigration, discriminating against Southern and Eastern Europeans, and completely excludes "aliens ineligible for citizenship," namely all Asians
In 1952, the California Supreme Court finally found the Alien Land Law of 1913 unconstitutional in Fujii Sei v. State of California. Also in 1952, the Walter-McCarran Immigration and Naturalization Act granted Asian immigrants, previously ineligible for naturalization, the right to become naturalized citizens. The national origins quotas, barriers to Asian immigration, were not eliminated until 1965.
The rise and fall of the "White Australia" policy more or less overlapped with those of anti-immigrant policies in Canada and the United States, immigration controls tightening in the early twentieth century and relaxing in the 1960s. The watershed in abolishing the "White Australia" policy was the March 1966 announcement by Immigration Minister Hubert Opperman (cf. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy> and <http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/08abolition.htm>). In Australia, Canada, and the United States, discrimination against Asians began to end, in response both to civil rights struggles and changing political economy (from manufacturing to service, from welfare states to neoliberalism).
>I suppose I should be surprised that you append a barrage of stats
>about Canada's immigration policy, when I didn't mention Canada, but
>I don't see how it's relevant, except to blunt any half-decent thing
>one can say about the U.S.
Australia, Canada, and the United States are three nation-states that originated in white settler colonies of the British Empire receiving immigrants first predominantly from Europe and then later more racially diverse immigrants from other parts of the world, so it makes sense to compare the three. As I explained above in detail, the history of immigration controls followed the similar trajectory in all three nations.
Even in continental Europe, however, there are nations (such as Luxembourg and Switzerland) whose labor forces are occupied by higher proportions of the foreign-born than the United States's is: "Over the last decade, the proportion of foreigners in the labour force has increased significantly in several OECD countries, notably Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the United States. The share of foreigners in the overall labour force varies widely, however. At the high end of the range, it accounts for 57.7% in Luxembourg, 24.8% in Australia, 19.2% in Canada, 17.3% in Switzerland and 11.7% in the United States. By contrast, it ranges from 5% to 10% in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Sweden. It amounts to less than 5% in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Japan" ("Report Shows Immigration Flows Rising in Many OECD Countries," January 19, 2001, <http://www.oecd.org/document/29/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2025757_1_1_1_1,00.html>).
Such differences may be better explained by history and political economy, rather than "decency" or lack thereof, though.
>Like I've said before, one of the most awful things about the Bush
>admin is its hostility towards immigration, which I hope will be
>reversed should he be fired next week.
I don't foresee any big change in immigration policy, unless business leaders aggressively complain of negative impacts of restrictive immigration policy and/or US economy experiences a big uptick and/or struggles of immigrant workers intensify. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>