Naturalization Acts -- All -- Legislation_timeline

Naturalization Act of 1790 The original United States naturalization law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. At that time and by that law naturalization was limited to aliens who were "free white persons" and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, most women, as well as immigrants from the Pacific (such as Asians), all of whom were considered dependents and thus incapable of casting an independent vote. The 1790 Act also limited naturalization to persons of "good moral character"; the law required a set period of residence in the United States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in the state of residence when applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States."

Naturalization Act of 1795 The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act in two areas: The period of required residence increased from two to five years in the United States and from one to two years in the state of residence. One change introduced by the 1795 Act was the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process. Immigrants intending to naturalize had to go to their local court and declare their intention at least three years prior to their formal application. In the declaration, the immigrant would also indicate his understanding that upon naturalization, he would take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States but also of renunciation of his former sovereign. In addition to the declaration of intention and oath of renunciation, the 1795 Act required all naturalized persons to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and be "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

Naturalization Act of 1798 The Naturalization Act passed by Congress on June 18, 1798, increased the amount of time necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from 5 to 14 years. Although it was passed under the guise of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of voters that disagreed with the Federalist political party. At the time, most immigrants (namely Irish and French) supported the Democratic-Republicans, who disagreed with the Federalists. This act was repealed in 1802. No new amendments were made until 1862. A number of changes were made to the previous naturalization law:

ACT Naturalization ANaturalizatio NOTICE TI3 years 5 years RESIDENC5 years 14 years The "NOTICE TIME" refers to how long immigrants had to wait after declaring their intent to become a citizen. The "RESIDENCE PERIOD" refers to how long they had to live in the United States before they could become a citizen. The Naturalization Act is considered one of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed contemporaneously in 1798. Like the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, this act also restricted citizenship to "free white persons".

Chinese Exclusion Act The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. Those on the West Coast were especially prone to attribute declining wages and economic ills on the despised Chinese workers. Although the Chinese composed only .002 percent of the nation's population, Congress passed the exclusion act to placate worker demands and assuage prevalent concerns about maintaining white "racial purity." The statute of 1882 suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and declared the Chinese as ineligible for naturalization. Chinese workers already in the country challenged the constitutionality of the discriminatory acts, but their efforts failed. The act was renewed in 1892 for another ten years, and in 1902 Chinese immigration was made permanently illegal. The legislation proved very effective, and the Chinese population in the United States sharply declined. American experience with Chinese exclusion spurred later movements for immigration restriction against other "undesirable" groups such as Middle Easterners, Hindu and East Indians, and the Japanese. The Chinese themselves remained ineligible for citizenship until 1943.

Geary Act The Geary Act was a United States law passed in 1892 written by California Congressman Thomas J. Geary. It extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year at hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings. The Geary Act was challenged in the courts and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1893.

Gentlemen's Agreement The Gentlemen's Agreement between the United States and Japan in 1907-1908 represented an effort by President Theodore Roosevelt to calm growing tension between the two countries over the immigration of Japanese workers. A treaty with Japan in 1894 had assured free immigration, but as the number of Japanese workers in California increased, they were met with growing hostility. In August 1900, Japan agreed to deny passports to laborers seeking to enter the United States; this, however, did not stop the many workers who obtained passports to Canada, Mexico, or Hawaii and then moved on to the United States. Racial antagonism intensified, fed by inflammatory articles in the press. On May 7, 1905, a Japanese and Korean Exclusion League was organized, and on October 11, 1906, the San Francisco school board arranged for all Asian children to be placed in a segregated school. Japan was prepared to limit immigration to the United States, but was deeply wounded by San Francisco's discriminatory law aimed specifically at its people. President Roosevelt, wishing to preserve good relations with Japan as a counter to Russian expansion in the Far East, intervened. While the American ambassador reassured the Japanese government, Roosevelt summoned the San Francisco mayor and school board to the White House in February 1907 and persuaded them to rescind the segregation order, promising that the federal government would itself address the question of immigration. On February 24, the Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan was concluded in the form of a Japanese note agreeing to deny passports to laborers intending to enter the United States and recognizing the U.S. right to exclude Japanese immigrants holding passports originally issued for other countries. This was followed by the formal withdrawal of the San Francisco school board order on March 13, 1907. A final Japanese note dated February 18, 1908, made the Gentlemen's Agreement fully effective. The agreement was superseded by the exclusionary Immigration Act of 1924.

Immigration Act of 1917 On February 5, 1917, Congress forcibly passed the Asiatic Barred Zone Act with overwhelming majority, overriding President Woodrow Wilson's December 14, 1916 veto. The legislation prevented immigration to the U.S. from mostly Asian countries, including the region of British India. An intentional loophole was provided to exempt white persons from these barred zones from falling under the same stipulation.

Emergency Quota Act This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations. In the United States, the Emergency Quota Act of May 19, 1921 limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 3% of the number of persons from that country living in the United States in 1910, according to Census figures. This totalled about 357,802 immigrants. Of that number just over half was allocated for northern and western Europeans, and the remainder for eastern and southern Europeans, a 75% reduction from prior years. Professionals were allowed in despite their origins. The act was passed in a time of swelling isolationism following World War I.

Immigration Act of 1924 The United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act, Johnson-Reed Act, or the Immigration Quota Act of 1924, limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890 according to the census of 1890. This law severely restricted immigration by establishing a system of national quotas that blatantly discriminated against immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and virtually excluded Asians. The policy stayed in effect until the 1960s. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at reducing the influx of Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America. It passed with strong congressional support (only 6 dissenting votes in the Senate). Some of its strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data, which is now considered by the vast majority of scientists to be flawed, purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races.

Floor debates On the house floor the most common argument made by those favoring the legislation, and the one reflected in the majority report, is the argument that in the interests of fairness to all ethnic groups, the quotas should reflect the relative ethnic composition of the entire country. Restrictionists noted that the census of 1890 was chosen because the percentages of the foreign born of different ethnic groups in that year approximated the general ethnic composition of the entire country in 1920. Senator Reed of Pennsylvania and Representative Rogers of Massachusetts proposed to achieve the same result by directly basing the quotas on the national origins of all people in the country as of the 1920 census, and this was eventually incorporated into the law. Representative Rogers argued that 'Gentlemen, you can not dissent from this principle because it is fair. It does not discriminate for anybody and it does not discriminate against anybody' (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5847). In the words of the House Majority Report: •

“The use of the 1890 census is…an effort to preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States. The use of a later census would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated its institutions.”

Senator Reed noted: •

"The purpose, I think, of most of us in changing the quota basis is to cease from discriminating against the native born here and against the group of our citizens who come from northern and western Europe. I think the present system discriminates in favor of southeastern Europe." (Cong. Rec., April. 16, 1924; p. 6457) (i.e., because 46% of the quotas under the 1921 act went to Eastern and Southern Europe when they constituted less than 12% of the population).

•

"Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the 'Nordic' race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer, with a very low percentage of crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which have greatly enriched the world and which have, indeed, enriched us, a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble. What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5922).

While Representative Scott Leavitt stated quite bluntly that Jewish representatives should respect the desire of other Americans to retain the ethnic status quo: •

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. [Congressional Record, April 12 1924, 6265-6266]

Possible Anti-Semitism While motivated by a desire to preserve an ethnic status quo, these laws may also have been motivated partly by anti-Semitism, since during this period opposition to immigration was perceived as mainly a Jewish issue. This certainly appears to have been the perception of Jewish observers: for example, prominent Jewish writer Maurice Samuel (1924), writing in the immediate aftermath of the 1924 legislation, wrote that "it is chiefly against the Jew that anti-immigration laws are passed here in America as in England and Germany" (p. 217),' and such perceptions continue among historians of the period (e.g., Hertzberg 1989, 239). This perception was not restricted to Jews. In remarks before the Senate, the anti-restrictionist Senator Reed of Missouri noted that "Attacks have likewise been made upon the Jewish people who have crowded to our shores. The spirit of intolerance has been especially active as to them" (Cong. Rec. Feb. 19, 1921; p. 3463), and during World War II Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated that it was

opposition to unrestricted immigration of Jews that resulted in the restrictive legislation of 1924. (Breitman & Kraut, 1987, p. 87). The House Immigration Committee Majority Report (House Report #109, Dec. 6, 1920) stated that "by far the largest percentage of immigrants (are) peoples of Jewish extraction," (p. 4), and it implied that the majority of the expected new immigrants would be Polish Jews. The report 'confirmed the published statement of a commissioner of the Hebrew Sheltering and Aid Society of America made after his personal investigation in Poland, to the effect that 'If there were in existence a ship that could hold 3,000,000 human beings, the 3,000,000 Jews of Poland would board it to escape to America (p. 6). The Majority Report also included a report by Wilbur S. Carr, head of the United States Consular Service, that stated that the Polish Jews were "abnormally twisted because of (a) reaction from war strain; (b) the shock of revolutionary disorders; (c) the dullness and stultification resulting from past years of oppression and abuse... ; Eighty-five to ninety percent lack any conception of patriotic or national spirit. And the majority of this percentage are unable to acquire it' (p. 9; see also Breitman and Kraut [1987, 12] Consular reports warned that "many Bolshevik sympathizers are in Poland". (p. 11) As an example of its effect, in the ten years following 1900 about 200,000 Italians immigrated every year. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, only 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from the British Isles, France, Germany, and other Northern European countries. The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Magnuson Act The Magnuson Act was an immigration law signed December 17, 1943 in the United States. It allowed Chinese immigration for the first time since the Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) of 1882, and allowed Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens. This marked the first time since the 1795 Naturalization Act that any Asians were permitted to be naturalized. It was passed during World War II, when China was a welcome ally to the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act had beome an embarrassment in China/US relations. However the Magnuson Act did not create an open door. It limited Chinese immigrants to 105 persons to be selected by the US government. Equality with other nations did not come until the Immigration Act of 1965, which removed all national quotas and permitted immigration from Asia on an equal footing for the first time.

McCarran-Walter Act The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (better known as the McCarran-Walter Act) was a law passed by the United States Congress restricting immigration into the United States.

It came into being despite heavy controversies between President Harry Truman and the House and the Senate. Truman vetoed the so-called McCarran-Walter Act (named after sponsors Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada) and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania)) because he regarded the bill as "unAmerican" and discriminatory. The two chambers neglected the president's veto but applied some changes to the bill. Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued. Eventually, the INA established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications. The INA defined three types of immigrants: 1. relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; 2. average immigrants whose numbers was not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; 3. refugees. The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. It was used over the years to bar members and former members and "fellow travellers" of the Communist Party from entry into the United States, even those who had not been associated with the party for decades. "I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation." (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)

Immigration Act of 1990 The Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649, November 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4978) increased the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States each year. It also created a lottery program that randomly assigned a number of visas. This was to help immigrants from countries where the United States did not often grant visas. The Act also provided for exceptions to the English testing process required for naturalization set forth by the Naturalization Act of 1906. After the Act, the United States would admit 700,000 new immigrants annually, up from 500,000 before the bill's passage. The new system continued to favor people with family members already in the United

States, but added 55,000 "diversity visas" for countries from which few were emigrating as well as 40,000 permanent job-related visas and 65,000 temporary worker visas. Additional provisions strengthened the U.S. Border Patrol and altered language regarding disease restrictions in a way that permitted the secretary of Health and Human Services to remove AIDS from the list of illnesses making a prospective immigrant ineligible to enter the country.