Praising Mistakes Of The Past Is Insanity


(Originally posted 1/12/17 on Read With The Gringa)

The gringa wants to conclude her studies on the history of U.S. immigration by examining a particular policy that was enacted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration in 1954. The incoming Trump administration has threatened a revival of a deportation policy that has already proven disastrous. Again, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, yet expecting different results, is the incoming group of politicians all insane? Is a madman about to take the helm of U.S. government? Will the lunatics be running the asylum in less than two weeks? Let’s take a look at Operation Wetback and see if parallels of this policy should be supported or resisted if Trump attempts to resurrect this dead beast.

After World War I, the nation was hurting for cheap labor, particularly in agriculture. They hoped to fill this void by exploiting imported labor groups from Mexico. As non-citizens, such groups could successfully be exploited because they would not have political representation, other than any interest that their country of origin might have.

However, we learned through the Bracero Program of 1942, that Mexico’s government was also exploiting its own people who participated.  Legal Bracero’s were subject to withholdings from their earnings being kept by the U.S. and Mexico to pay for certain provisions of their Bracero work-visas. Provisions that should have provided benefits but both governments simply kept the money. This resulted in the U.S. not seeing the numbers needed of voluntary migrant workers participating.The gringa doesn’t blame Mexicans for rejecting participation in the program.

But industry will always find a way to meet its own need. Workers who need to make a buck will always find a way around government over-reach into their pocket. The result was that illegal immigration increased and farmers were only too happy to employ them. And, for a time, the US looked the other way while it was convenient and the citizens were satisfied with cheap produce abundantly supplied to their local markets.

But, in the early 1950’s Americans were tiring of being so tolerant to illegal immigrants who were picking those beans they enjoyed with dinner. Eisenhower satisfied their indignation with Operation Wetback. Deportation records indicate that more than one million immigrants were removed from the country. Now, considering that a racial slur was used in an official government record entitled deportation legislation, there is no doubt in the gringa’s mind that this piece of work was racially motivated and wholly approved by a racist white majority population. For shame, America.

But that’s how elitist white majority capitalism works. Exploit without a conscience those with melanin as cheap labor. Then, when your done with them, demonize them and kick them out, even if it means destroying their lives and families.

Once the announcement was made June 9, 1954, that this was the official policy of the U.S., aggressive raids and deportation forces focused their attention on Arizona and California. Law enforcement used methods like roadblocks and checkpoints. Eventually these methods spilled over into Texas as well. Sweeps even reached as far as the states of Washington, Illinois, Kansas and Missouri. Within a couple of months the operation wound down and then, once funding ran out, the government proudly announced that the “problem no longer existed”. Yeah, right. Government officials just didn’t want to admit that no matter how many people they deport, there is really no way to secure a border like the US southern border. It is extensive, porous, and rugged. Trump thinks a wall will work? He must have never heard about the ingenuity of drug smuggling tunnels.

Now, to an American Nationalist, Operation Wetback sounds like a prime example of how to deal with undocumented aliens that are in the country. Well, the gringa says, “Not so fast.” Before you accept your initial knee-jerk reaction, get down to the nitty-gritty, the nuts and bolts, the actual “what exactly happens” kind of stuff.

Currently, there are well over 12 million people in the US with undocumented status. Many of these people enjoy this status through no fault of their own. How many unscrupulous immigration attorneys do you think have taken advantage of vulnerable immigrants, taking their money and never doing a thing to manage their legal paperwork properly? Yeah, that’s a problem. That’s a problem with AMERICAN criminals, not immigrant criminals. Then you have people who have fled their native countries in terror, arrived here undocumented and have the right to apply for refugee status or asylum. In their desperation to get out alive during dangerous internal strife, there is simply no time to secure documents. Proper channels to do such a thing may not even exist. Even if they did, the very people being victimized by their government and needing to escape are also the last people such a government would grant travel documents to. Those are the kind of people our country EXPECTS to arrive undocumented. And how many immigrants do you think have been committed to maintaining a legal status only to fall victim to overcrowded immigration courts who have let their case fall through the cracks? The reality is that such things happen. Sometimes, it’s the US that is to blame.

For all of these reasons, undocumented immigrants have the right of due process as every other citizen and legal immigrant. And if you think we should just forego due process, then you are saying that we should just do away with the foundations of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. The rights of undocumented immigrants are all wrapped up in the very logic and reason behind how every human being enjoys inalienable and civil rights in the US. Are you willing to put your own liberty, freedom and security at risk simply because you have a problem with immigrants?

What kind of country do you really want to live in? Do you really want to live in a country where you have your drive to work interrupted by roadblocks, searches of your car and demands to see your documents? So, you say, “No big deal if you are a citizen.” Once again, the gringa says, “Not so fast.” There’s this little thing called the Civil Rights Act. Think about how roadblocks and ID demands could infringe upon the equal protection of minorities. Take this scenario for example:

The gringa and her caveman are driving separate cars home after picking one up at the repair shop. The gringa reaches the roadblock only to realize that she forgot her ID at home. The cop looks at her white skin, hears her flawless English, albeit with a Texas twang, and waves her on through. Right behind her is the caveman, a US citizen for more than a quarter of a century. He realizes his wallet is in his wife’s handbag because he always wears pocket-less soccer shorts and refuses to carry a man-purse. The cop sees his brown skin and hears that Peruvian accent and then orders him to get out of the vehicle. The car is impounded and the caveman heads downtown, detained for further questioning.

If the caveman is lucky, the gringa will bring his ID and clear everything up. But they are still out of pocket for paying to get the car out of impound. Not to mention the indignity and hassle. But what if the gringa had been out of town? Would it be possible that injustice could occur and the caveman could find himself shipped off to Peru? Is it possible that many like him, US naturalized citizens or legal immigrants, could lose everything if such policies were enacted? The evidence is that many already have.

When Eisenhower started a racist dragnet across the country, caught in that web were many who had every right to be in this country. Yet they were deported. So, in addition to hundreds of unnecessary deaths by heat exhaustion and drowning, the lives of US citizens were destroyed simply because of the color of their skin, the ethnic quality of their name, and, perhaps, the existence of an accent.

If the operation had truly been a success, rather than funds peter out, Congress would have voted for another round. Citizens would have expected enforcement to continue. Instead, US government spin doctors churned out the propaganda that it was such a resounding success there was no more need for deportation round-ups. And it seems that those spin doctors are hard at work for the future Trump administration. Because people who are afraid of melanin can’t admit they are fraidy-cats and bigots can’t admit that bigoted actions are a failure.

So, if you are an advocate for inhumane treatment of fellow humans, ripping apart families, infringing upon the Civil Rights of all citizens and guests to this country, and destroying the lives of some of your fellow Americans, then I am sure that you will be just fine with Trump’s future plans. As long as you are not personally affected, you could care less about what might happen to those “damn furriners”. The gringa would like to ask such people, “You claim, with great pride, to be a citizen of the ‘home of the brave, right? Then why are you so afraid of people with melanin and speak with an accent? Why not grow a pair and make your country proud. Be brave. There are better solutions to this very complicated immigration problem our nation has.”

Sources:

Immigration To United States

Library Of Congress

www.factcheck.org

Politifact

National Public Radio

America’s Voice

Image Credit: felicitysmoak.info.tm

Advertisements

Deportation: Easy to Say, Impossible to Do


1996 Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act

In addition to welfare reform regulations that affected immigrants, President Bill Clinton also enacted sweeping immigration reform, signing the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act into law September 30, 1996. The scope of the bill was broad with a goal to strengthen current immigration laws and simplify immigration procedures. The lengthy document had five critical areas:

  • Border Control enhancement with more personnel, equipment and technology
  • Stronger penalties for convictions of smuggling, human trafficking, and document fraud
  • Reformed deportation procedures
  • Stricter enforcement of employers
  • Benefits restrictions for immigrants

The focus of this blog post will be on the deportation details. It is very common to hear anti-immigrant supporters scream for mass deportation. Usually, they haven’t a clue what that entails. It is a lengthy and costly process, paid for by the taxpayers, and, in the end, even if ruled deportable, almost impossible to actually accomplish.

With an estimated eleven million undocumented people within U.S. borders, I think it is time for the nation to simply wipe the slate clean, grant working or student resident status for the non-criminal immigrants that are here and start over. After you read the basic legal details for the deportation process, you will understand why the gringa feels this way. You may even agree.

So, what about decent people who have managed to enter the country undocumented, are minding their own business, working and contributing to society in a meaningful way? How will the government treat them? According to the 1996 legislation they are to be treated according to their status, illegally present, except for minors, battered women, refugees seeking asylum and certain situations with regard to keeping family unity intact.

For the average undocumented immigrant, after 1996, if discovered, they could look forward to apprehension and detention. It would then be up to the Attorney General to decide whether or not to begin deportation proceedings and keep the person in detention or release them on bond or conditional parole. Such decisions were weighed according to whether or not the immigrant posed a danger to the safety of people and property and could be relied upon to appear for judicial proceedings.

So, an undocumented person gets discovered, is detained, has a hearing and is either released (without work authorization) or continues in detention until receiving a “Notice To Appear”. If they are released they would either have to rely on the charity of others or work off the books. If they remain in detention, it is all on the taxpayer dime.

Their second court appearances is to hear the charges. A period of time is then given for the immigrant to retain counsel. Typically about ninety days. Mind you, then, by the time the actual “Removal Proceeding” is conducted by the court, anywhere from three months to six months has transpired.

At the third appearance, the actual trial of the “Removal Proceeding”, the immigrant’s counsel could also ask for a postponement. Such a strategy occurs quite often in many types of court cases. Six months could drag on into seven or eight months. When the postponed trial date rolls around, if the immigrant fails to appear, which is also not uncommon, counsel can then request a 180 day delay if the reason for the failure to appear is legitimate, such as illness. Now, the deportation process is stretching into about a one year scenario.

After a year of legal wrangling and delays, the “Removal Proceeding” actually takes place. The greater burden of proof is on the nation to provide clear and convincing evidence that the immigrant is deportable. The legislation clearly states that deportation is only valid if reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence is produced. Suppose the judge decides the immigrant is deportable. What then? Well, the immigrant has the right to appeal the case within thirty days. Now we’re up to a year and a month for the deportation process.

What happens with an appeal? The process then starts all over again. So, two years later, from the time the immigrant was first discovered, the final ruling is still for deportation. Now what?

If it is finally concluded that the immigrant is indeed deportable, the Attorney General may still grant the immigrant the right of voluntary departure, at their own expense, within sixty days if the immigrant meets certain criteria. Sounds crazy, right? How many of these “voluntary departure” cases actually departed? Mm hmm. Can you say, “Loophole! Duck and take cover! Lay low and hunker down!”.

If the Attorney General decides the nation will handle the departure, there is a ninety day window in which to accomplish removing the immigrant from the country. Now the deportation process has developed into a two year and three month time period for accomplishment. Will deportation be accomplished?

In a case where the nation handles the actual removal of the immigrant, the immigrant is detained. Again, detention is paid for by the taxpayer. The immigrant will remain in detention until he makes arrangements for departure. There is no law that requires the immigrant actually do this. Even if the country makes the arrangements, the immigrant has to declare where he wants to go. No one can force the immigrant to do this either.

The dear reader asks, “Why doesn’t the nation just return the immigrant to his country of origin?” Well, because that is a sticky process as well. Read on and you’ll find out why. For travel scheduling reasons or because of lack of cooperation from the immigrant, another ninety day time extension can be made. Deportation process now clocking in at two and a half years (and all that time either working off the books, living off the charity of others, or in detention getting room and board on the taxpayer dime).

So, the ninety day extension passes and the immigrant still refuses to leave. Guess what? We can’t force him to. So, the Attorney General now has the “option” to declare a suspension of deportation. This is determined by the immigrant’s length of continuous physical presence in the country, good moral character, and to what degree of hardship deportation would cause. Basically, the Attorney General thinks to himself, “This person has been in the country X number of years, has been a pretty good guy and done well for himself here and if we send him back where he came from his life will return to the living hell he was trying to escape in the first place. Okay. Suspension of deportation granted.” And now the immigrant will be subject to periodic meetings with immigration officers, medical and psychiatric exams at the country’s expense, have no authorization to legally work and live by certain restrictions as outlined by the Attorney General.

Is the dear reader now getting a clearer picture of this mess now? Is the dear reader now no longer surprised and totally understands why so many undocumented people are here and why they will probably continue to stay here? So, if an undocumented person is a law abiding, decent person other than their unlawful entry into the nation, even if ordered by the court to be deported, the country can still not forcibly remove them. They can remain in this country without authorization to work, therefore forced to work off the books and unable to contribute to the very nation that is tolerating their presence. Sounds absolutely crazy to the gringa to go to all this trouble only to end up right back where we started!

Why is forcible removal not possible? Number one, you have a person with no legal identity. You first have to prove who they are in order to know where they come from so you can send them back! Since they have the right to remain silent, they cannot even be forced to tell law enforcement who they are. So, a true individual identity linked to a birth country of origin is what the Attorney General’s office requires before it can make arrangements for deportation. Then some other country must be willing to accept them. They once again have to cross a border into another nation. Who is going to accept them? What if their country of origin is not a neighboring country? What if their country of origin requires travel through multiple other countries? These other countries also have to allow them entry.

If, then, an undocumented individual has been delivered a deport ruling and refuses to reveal his or her true identity, what next? Then the taxpayers have to pay for a full scale investigation to figure out who they are and where they came from if that immigrant decides to exercise this right and not tell immigration officials a damn thing. How do investigators do that?Umm, talk to friends, family and co-workers? Say they do. Say they find out he calls himself Ricardo Montalban from Nicaragua. How does the investigator prove it? Does he call someone in Nicaragua and say, “Hey, we’ve got this guy says he’s Ricardo Montalban from your country. Anybody born about thirty years ago by that name in your neck of the woods?” Honestly, you think it’s that easy? Say the investigators get lucky and they get something like a fingerprint ID to prove Ricardo really is from Nicaragua. Say the judge says, “Deport ol’ Ricardo.” Then, the Attorney General calls up Nicaragua and says, “We’d like to send him back.” Nicaragua can say, “Nope. We don’t want him. We were glad to see the back of ‘im. We won’t let him enter the country. He’s your problem now. You keep him.”  But, then again, maybe Nicaragua says, “Sure, we’ll take him back.” Then the Attorney General has to call Mexico and say, “Hey, we’re deporting this guy to Nicaragua but there is a six hour layover in Mexico City. Is that okay with you guys?” What if Mexico says, “Hell no! Ol’ Ricardo caused nothing but trouble last time he passed through here. He’s banned. We won’t let him enter.” Then the U.S. is still stuck with Ricardo. Can you imagine the process of passing through multiple countries and border entries if we deported someone to China or Russia? Now you see just how impossible deportation can really be.

Complicated re-entry and multiple border crossings aside, America also has laws that prevent removal of an immigrant into a country of origin that is at war or where the immigrant’s life or freedom may be threatened. In that case as well as scenarios like the one depicted in the previous paragraph, the only alternative is for the Attorney General’s office to grant an immigrant a “stay”. The immigrant can be released from detention on bond and certain conditions outlined by the Attorney General’s office BUT, yes, the big but, still not authorized to work! IT’S INSANE! I suppose they expect these people to work the rest of their lives off the books and be ghosts in society.

And that, in a nutshell, is the crazy process of deportation. You see, even if they have an illegal status, they still enjoy equal protection under American law. Once they are here the burden is on the United States to prove they don’t belong, prove who they are, and prove where they came from. And, no matter who they turn out to be, the judiciary’s role is to safeguard the rights of ALL individuals. The burden of proof is on the nation to prove a case against the undocumented immigrant.

As a result of this legislation, we can all thank President Clinton for the fact that ever since its passage immigration detention beds have been filled to capacity at taxpayers expense, ruined lives and no real gain in trimming down the numbers of undocumented people within U.S. borders. That is why mandatory detention and deportation needs to stop because it doesn’t actually end with a deportation, only a deportation order that is unenforceable. Every penny of taxpayer money to get from point A to point B only to be told you must return to point A and stay there is wasted. The future of the immigrant is wasted as well. In 2013 there were over 300,000 cases lined up, waiting their turn, for removal proceedings. How much do you think just one of those cases costs the taxpayers? Let’s just guess at $10,000 per case (although the cost is probably much higher). Multiply that times 300,000. Now take all that $3 billion and flush it down the toilet. See what the gringa means?

So, two years and six months of time and expense in detention and the court system, all paid for by the taxpayers, and what was accomplished. Nothing, other than keeping a person within the nation’s borders who is forced to work off the books and therefore unable to contribute their fair share of taxes and Social Security into the system. Now do you see what the gringa means when she said legalize the workers and students, wipe the slate clean and start over?

Once they are legalized, they have an identification that can legally be tracked down to their country of origin. Just like a resident alien, if they commit a felony in five years’ time, they forfeit their chance at citizenship and are deportable because now the country knows who they are, where their country of origin is and the evidence of a deportable crime. During their five year probation, they have been legally working and contributing their fair share of taxes and Social Security. If they keep their nose clean during their five year probation, letting them stay in the country was the right thing to do. So, again, the gringa says, “Just legalize ‘em. It’s the only thing, at this time, that actually makes sense.”

But, if it makes sense, why doesn’t the U.S. government do it? Because the nation has a history of importing cheap labor for big business to exploit; a labor class that has no legal status to make demands for civil rights and protection. Until big business stops running our country’s government through the politicians they own, the nation will never get meaningful immigration reform because it is not in the interest of big business.
Sources:

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1996_illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigrant_responsibility_act.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigration_responsibility_act

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html

http://immigrationinamerica.org/577-illegal-immigration-reform-and-immigrant-responsibility-act-of-1996.html

https://www.aclu.org/blog/ending-laws-fuel-mass-detention-and-deportation

http://liftedlamp.com/2013/02/06/why-immigration-reform-must-also-avoid-the-mistakes-of-1996/

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000794

Photo credit: www.iyjl.org

1940 Nationality Act – Hypocrisy and Double Standards


In the late 1930’s the United States was once again scratching away at the parchment writing out the legal parameters of the Nationality Act of 1940. The problematic parts of the legislation are certiain conditions that, if not met, a person’s citizenship “automatically expires”, with no due process.

What was going on in the country that had lawmakers going to such efforts as to write new laws? With the country in the throes of the Great Depression, its economic effects rippled throughout the world. People from other countries did not have the means to emigrate. Also, because of the restrictive immigrant laws of 1924, many immigrants had been deported. As the threat of a second World War intensified throughout Europe, refugees began to challenge America’s restrictive immigration policies, although rarely successful. The gringa wants to know the facts. Digging a little deeper is required.

By the 1930’s, the religious landscape of the nation had changed. America has been historically viewed as a nation founded by, created by and governed by Christians. By the year 1930, however, the population of Jews outnumbered the ranks of the Episcopalians and Presbyterians combined. Eastern European Judaism was the predominant Jewish culture in the U.S. They assimilated into American culture but designed community programs in order to maintain their distinctly Jewish heritage. Despite their “Americanism”, many schools and colleges blatantly discriminated against Jews. With public figures like Henry Ford openly criticizing the patriotism and character of America’s Jewish population, it’s no surprise that violence was commonly visited upon Jews during this period of U.S. history.

America was becoming infatuated with it’s own national identity. Folk culture became popularized with the Library of Congress even beginning to collect American folk songs. American intellectuals churned out thoughtful manifestos such as “I’ll Take My Stand”, by the Southern Agrarians who desired a return to the simple way of life of agriculture. In direct contrast was Lewis Mumford’s “Technics and Civilization” which was more forward focused on developing technology to advance U.S. capitalism through a new age of modernism.

Such modernist ideas were reflected in the architecture and art of the 1930’s. The 1939 World’s Fair in New York made it clear to the world that America wanted to leave behind the anorexic economy of the Great Depression and this would happen through the development of “the world of tomorrow”. This “world of tomorrow” was pictorialized in America cinema and television shows of the era. This was the birth of the superhero, like Superman and the Lone Ranger. Hollywood also played a critical role in producing forms of entertainment that also served as propaganda to lift American spirits out of the defeatist spirit of the Great Depression. This was when the world was introduced to an American original comedy genre, slapstick and screwball. The financial disaster of the Great Depression gave way to fantasy and longings for a modern, futuristic world.

The nation’s economic solution for the people’s relief from the suffering of the Great Depression was the New Deal. This was not specifically a cure, but more of a stabilizing plan. This would enable people to get their feet back under them so they could focus on what Americans do best, make money. Because social and economic salvation came through the government, American perspective toward the government began to change. Americans who previously were suspicious of too much government control and power were now more inclined to believe that the intentions of Big Brother had the citizens’ best interest at heart.

As people in the United States are looking forward, the Japanese are looking back. After years of chafing at the political insults America meted out to Japan through immigration policies, on December 29, 1934, Japan renounced the Washington Naval Treaty it had entered into with America in 1922.

Five years later, 1939, Germany invades Poland. After a year of appeasement fails, aggression by Nazi Germany begins the Second World War. September 5th of that same year, the United States declares its neutrality. The U.S. had complete confidence in its isolationist position because by that time we already had the A-bomb thanks to refugee Albert Einstein that America welcomed to its shores in 1933 as he fled from the Nazis. And thus begins a flood of European immigrants seeking to escape the horrors of war which inspired the nation, known as the great hope of the hopeless, to once again reveal its true capitalist colors and reform the nation’s immigration and citizenship policies with the 1940 Nationality Act.

Section 201 of this act declares citizenship at birth for any child born outside the U.S. of at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. This parent must have lived within the U.S. or any of its territories for a minimum of ten years, with at least five of those years being after the age of sixteen years. In order for the child to maintain U.S. citizenship status the child must live within the U.S. or any of its territories for five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years. These, of course, being the formative years of primary education and higher education. The nation wanted assurance that during those critical years the child was in the U.S. being indoctrinated with educational propaganda in the public schools in order to shape the mind of the child into a good patriot. If these residential conditions are not met, the child’s U.S. citizenship automatically expires without due process.

Section 401 contains wording that provides for the revocation of U.S. citizenship if a person votes in a political election of another country. This particular requirement created legal challenges that resulted in inconsistent action by the U.S.

In 1958, U.S. district courts ruled in Perez v. Brownell. Clement Martinez Perez was a U.S. citizen born in El Paso, Texas who traveled back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico, residing in either country for extended periods of time. At some point he voted in a Mexican election. Perez lost his U.S. citizenship based on the court’s finding that Congress can revoke citizenship regardless if the action qualifying for the loss of citizenship is intentional or unintentional. The Supreme Court upheld the decision based on the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art. 1, 8, clause 18 of the Federal Constitution which states that voting in a foreign political election means a withdrawal of U.S. citizenship. The purpose of this clause is so that the U.S. can avoid international embarrassment by Americans getting involved in foreign affairs.

Nine years later the United States reverses its position. Beys Afroyim, who arrived in the U.S. in 1912, a Polish immigrant, and was naturalized in 1926, also became an Israeli citizen in 1950. He voted in six separate Israeli elections. He applied with the U.S. Consulate in Israel for an American passport. At first he was refused based on the same legal position attached to Perez in 1958. Taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court, the judge determined that Afroyim had not shown intent to lose his citizenship when he participated in Israeli elections. However, this was a direct contradiction to the published court opinion of the Perez case.

Due to the country’s special relationship with the nation of Israel, Americans can hold dual citizenship here and in Israel. That is not the case with Mexico. The gringa suspects the reasoning behind the special relationship with Israel is founded in religion and guilt.

Proof of the nation’s guilty conscience resonates in the words of President Truman after the war, “I urge the Congress to turn its attention to this world problem in an effort to find ways whereby we can fulfill our responsibilities to these thousands of homeless and suffering refugees of all faiths.” Now, if guilt is the reason for the special relationship between Israel and America, the gringa is okay with that. After all the United States should have a guilty conscience for not opening the immigration gates for the lambs who were trying to escape the slaughter.

However, if religion is the basis for this international special relationship, the gringa says, “We gots us a problem.” According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If religion is the basis for a special relationship between the United States and Israel, resulting in laws being applied in a prejudicial fashion between Americans of different ethnicities, I believe that is some pretty clear evidence of racism as well as a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

The gringa thinks the District Court of 1958 and the Supreme Court of 1967 has got some splainin’ to do because it seems America’s “world of tomorrow” was one of racial double standards.

Sources:

https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf

http://www.prothink.org/2008/03/27/the-1940-nationality-act/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell

http://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/immigration-timeline#1930

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/jewishexp.htm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3452

http://americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline1930.html

Photo credit: www.designarchives.aiga.org