Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:33:54.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Americans Must Show Justice in Immigration Policies Too”: The Passage of the 1965 Immigration Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Maddalena Marinari
Maddalena Marinari*
Affiliation:
St. Bonaventure University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 219 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. As quoted in Daniels, Roger, Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life, 2nd ed. (New York, 2002), 340.Google Scholar

2. For a recent discussion of the impact of the law outside of academia, see sociologist Douglas Massey’s most recent article in the New York Times. Douglas S. Massey, “Hispanic Families, Isolated and Broke,” New York Times, 4 August 2011. Some of the most comprehensive scholarly accounts include Irving Bernstein, Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (New York, 1996); . Bon Tempo, Carl J, Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees During the Cold War (Princeton, 2008)Google Scholar; Daniels, Roger, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882 (New York, 2004)Google Scholar; Graham, Otis L. Jr., Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis (Lanham, Md., 2006)Google Scholar; King, Desmond, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (Cambridge, Mass., 2000)Google Scholar; Ngai, Mae M., Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, 2004)Google Scholar; Reimers, David M., Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America, 2nd ed. (New York, 1992);Google ScholarTichenor, Daniel J., Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zolberg, Aristide, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (New York, 2006).Google Scholar

3. Daniels, Coming to America, 338.

4. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, chap. 7; Zolberg, A Nation by Design, chap. 9.

5. Graham, Unguarded Gates, 96. See also Betty Koed, “The Politics of Reform: Policymakers and the Immigration Act of 1965” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1999).

6. The antirestrictionist camp was comprised of a diverse coalition that included Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant voluntary agencies, labor unions, ethnic societies, and civic organizations. As the debate over immigration reform shifted to the imposition of a cap on Western Hemisphere immigration, no Latino advocacy group emerged or joined the coalition. It was only once the effects of the ceiling became fully apparent after 1968 and Mexican immigration became an increasingly salient political issue that Latino immigration reform advocacy organizations began to appear. This absence remains an understudied subject.

7. As sociologists Massey, Durand, and Malone note, “If pre-1965 policies had remained in force, it is likely that the flow of Mexicans would simply have shifted from bracero to resident alien visas and Mexican immigration would have continued apace under a different name.” Massey, Douglas S., Durand, Jorge, and Malone, Nolan J., Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration (New York, 2003), 42.Google Scholar

8. For more details on the history of immigration reform after 1921, see Bon Tempo, Americans at the Gate; Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door; Ngai, Impossible Subjects; Reimers, Still the Golden Door; Tichenor, Dividing Lines; and Zolberg, A Nation by Design.

9. Bernstein, Guns or Butter, 252–53.

10. Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 212.

11. Ibid., 213.

12. As LBJ scholars are aware, there is little in the archives written by Johnson himself because he preferred oral communication. As such, it is often difficult to establish with certainty what his position on an issue was. On immigration, the most helpful insights come from the interviews that Tichenor conducted with members of the Johnson administration for his Dividing Lines.

13. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 140; and Abba P. Schwartz, The Open Society (New York, 1968), 112–16.

14. The bill mandated that the Immigration Board include seven members, three appointed by the president and two each by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The creation of an Immigration Board soon became a point of contention, as many believed that it would give too much authority to the president and weaken Congress. Representative Celler (N.Y.), “Section-by-Section Analysis of Administration’s Immigration Bill,” Congressional Record 109 (23 July 1963), H13133.

15. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963–1964, vol. 1, entry 91 (Washington, D.C., 1965), 112–18.

16. “Monday, January 13, 1964 Immigration Meeting,” 11 January 1964, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1963–65, LBJ.

17. Office of the White House Press Secretary, “Remarks of the President to Representatives of Organizations Interested in Immigration and Refugee Matters,” 13 January 1964, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1963–65, LBJ.

18. After the meeting, an undisclosed administration aide told the New York Times that Feighan was “the prime opponent to new legislation.” “President Urges New Alien Law,” New York Times, 14 January 1964.

19. Established by the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, the Joint Committee on Immigration had only met once since its creation.

20. Office of the White House Press Secretary, “Remarks of the President to Representatives of Organizations Interested in Immigration and Refugee Matters.”

21. “Immigration Reformer: Michael Aloysius Feighan,” New York Times, 25 August 1965.

22. Norbert Schlei, as quoted in Bernstein, Guns or Butter, 253.

23. Considering Celler a longtime political nemesis, Feighan held him personally responsible for the limited role in the immigration reform process he had held until then. Feighan’s frustration with Celler continued throughout the entire negotiations over the immigration bill, as he admitted in a letter to Jack Valenti in August 1965. Feighan to Valenti, 9 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1965, LBJ. For more on the tense relationship between Celler and Feighan, see also Emanuel Celler Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

24. Schwartz, The Open Society, 119.

25. Johnson, Robert David and Germany, Kent B., The Presidential Recordings—Lyndon B. Johnson: Toward the Great Society, vol. 4 (New York, 2007), 442.Google Scholar

26. “Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1965,” Congressional Record 110 (10 April 1964), H7619-7647.

27. In the only reference to immigration reform that Rusk made in his memoir, it is clear that he was very interested in abolishing the exclusion of immigrants from the Asia-Pacific Triangle and in granting non-quota status to newly independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. He makes no reference to the ceiling on immigration from the Western Hemisphere or to the national origins quota system. Rusk, Dean, As I Saw It, as Told to Richard Rusk, ed. Papp, Daniel S. (New York, 1990), 589.Google Scholar

28. “Dean Rusk Assails Immigration Quotas,” ACIM Dispatch, July–August 1964.

29. “Statement by the Honorable Dean Rusk,” n.d., Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1963–65, LBJ.

30. During a 1983 phone interview with historian Stephen Wagner, Valenti said that Johnson assigned him to do more work on immigration reform because the president believed that his ethnic background would help him bring more passion to the issue. Stephen Wagner, “The Lingering Death of the National Origins Quota System: A Political History of U.S. Immigration Policy, 1952–1965” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986), 393–94.

31. Jack Valenti to Michael Feighan, 17 June 1964, and Valenti to Larry O’Brien, memorandum, 17 June 1964, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1964, LBJ.

32. Wagner, “The Lingering Death of the National Origins Quota System,” 395.

33. When, during the House hearings, Feighan proposed an immigration bill that focused exclusively on the redistribution of quotas to ease the existing backlogs, Eastland let the administration know that even that bill seemed too liberal to him. Memorandum, Feldman to Valenti, 12 August 1964, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ. It was journalist Mike Wallace who once called Eastland “the voice of the white South.” For more information about Eastland, see Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door, chap. 7, and Tichenor, Dividing Lines, chap. 7.

34. Memorandum, Feldman to Valenti, 12 August 1964, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

35. Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 214.

36. Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door, 133.

37. Zolberg, A Nation by Design, 330. The White House regularly received letters that criticized its efforts to reform immigration and called for more restrictive immigration legislation. For a sample of these letters, see Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1964–65, and box 73, file LE/IM 1964, LBJ.

38. For more on the importance of the reforms that diminished the power of the House Rules Committee and their significance in the passage of the 1965 immigration act, see William S. Stern, “H.R. 2580, The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1965: A Case Study” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1975), chap. 3.

39. Katzenbach selected Representatives Harold Donohue (D-Mass.) and Jacob Gilbert (D-N.Y.), both from heavily ethnic districts, and longtime Johnson ally Jack Brooks (D-Tex.). Schwartz, The Open Society, 121.

40. Wagner, “The Lingering Death of the National Origins Quota System,” 427.

41. “LBJ’s Immigration Proposals—Message to Congress Seeks Change over 5 Years to a Preferential Law,” ACIM Dispatch, January–February 1965.

42. Lieberman, Jethro K., Are Americans Extinct? (New York, 1968), 128–29, 132.Google Scholar

43. The idea of a ceiling on the Western Hemisphere was not new. On 3 August 1953 and again on 25 February 1955, Senator Herbert Lehman (D-N.Y.) introduced two immigration bills, which proposed for the first time a unified quota system that applied to all immigrants coming to the United States. Lehman emphasized the need to eliminate any form of discrimination against all immigrants, no matter their country of origin or the color of their skin. While the Kennedy and Johnson administrations never considered including Lehman’s proposal, the restrictionist Southern Democrats used Lehman’s bill and his rationale as a precedent to justify their request for a ceiling on the Western Hemisphere. Senator Lehman (N.Y.), “Immigration and Citizenship Act of 1953,” Congressional Record 99 (3 August 1953), S10959-10968; Senator Lehman (N.Y.), “Proposed Immigration and Citizenship Act of 1955,” Congressional Record 101 (25 February 1955), S2093-2101. See also debates on the bill in the House and Senate in Congressional Record 111 (September 1965); Ngai, chap. 7; Zolberg, chap. 9.

44. Hartley, William G, “United States Immigration Policy: The Case of the Western Hemisphere,” World Affairs 135, no. 1 (Summer 1972): 58Google Scholar; Wagner, “The Lingering Death of the National Origins Quota System,” 423–24.

45. “New Bills and Hearings Announced in Congress,” ACIM Dispatch, January–February 1965; “In Washington: Leaders Support Action on Bills,” ACIM Dispatch, January–February 1965.

46. U.S. House, Subcommittee no. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, Immigration, Hearing, 8 March 1965 (Serial no. 7), Washington, D.C., 1965.

47. Ibid.

48. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 23 March 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

49. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 144–45.

50. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 8 May 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

51. Memorandum, Schlei to Johnson, 7 May 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

52. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 8 May 1965.

53. Memorandum, Schlei to Johnson, 7 May 1965. Ultimately, the haste with which the ceiling on the Western Hemisphere became part of the final bill proved Schlei right. The lack of a well-developed and thought-out preference system for the Western Hemisphere created a dysfunctional and inefficient immigration system that proved difficult to administer.

54. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 8 May 1965.

55. During the House debate over the bill on 25 August, Feighan admitted that he had found persuasive the administration’s arguments about the diplomatic repercussions that the ceiling on the Western Hemisphere would have, but he also promised that he would not abandon the issue. Congressional Record 111 (25 August 1965), H21808-09. According to Wagner, Feighan relented after receiving an enormous amount of pressure from constituents who favored the abolition of the quota system, the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference, the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, and from his potential opponents in the 1966 primary. Wagner, “The Lingering Death of the National Origins Quota System,” 425–27.

56. Feighan’s preference system for immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, which was later adopted as part of the final bill, included four preference categories for family reunification, two categories for immigrants with skills needed in the United States, and one category for refugees.

57. Bon Tempo, Americans at the Gate, 96.

58. Schwartz, The Open Society, 123.

59. “Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (24 August 1965), H21591; Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 145; Schwartz, The Open Society, 124.

60. Ervin, Senator (N.C.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (17 September 1965), S24231–24237.Google Scholar

61. Memorandum, Perry Barber to Valenti, 8 July 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

62. Representative MacGregor (Minn.), “Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (24 August 1965), H21572-21574.

63. Representative MacGregor (Minn.), “Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (25 August 1965), H21759-21761.

64. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 146.

65. Hartley, “United States Immigration Policy,” 60. See also Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 146.

66. Memorandum, Barber to Valenti, July 8 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1963–65, LBJ.

67. “Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (25 August 1965), H21816-21821.

68. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 142.

69. Memorandum, Mike Manatos to Larry O’Brien, 16 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1965–67, LBJ.

70. George Autry, Ervin’s legislative assistant on immigration issues, told Stern that Ervin decided to endorse the abolition of the national origins quota system after the testimonies of members of Greek and Chinese American organizations during the hearings convinced him that descendants of great civilizations should not be stigmatized. Stern, “H.R. 2580,” 144–45.

71. Memorandum, Manatos to O’Brien, 20 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1965–67, LBJ.

72. Senator Ervin (N.C.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (17 September 1965), S24236.

73. Lieberman, Are Americans Extinct? 156–58; Representative Utt (Calif.), “National Federation of Labor,” Congressional Record 111 (9 August 1965), H19720-19724.

74. As quoted in Lieberman, Are Americans Extinct? 133.

75. Ibid., 136–42.

76. Memorandum, Manatos to O’Brien, 20 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1965–67, LBJ.

77. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 147. The New York Times was under the same impression. On 21 September 1965, the newspaper published an article that noted that, although the administration opposed the ceiling on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, “there apparently will be no strong effort to have it eliminated in the Senate.” “Kennedy Backs Immigration Bill,” New York Times, 21 September 1965.

78. Memorandum, Barber to Valenti, 8 July 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Legislation Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

79. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 25 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

80. Hartley, “United States Immigration Policy,” 61.

81. Bernstein, Guns or Butter, 257. See also “Alien Bill Freed by Dirksen Deal,” New York Times, 9 September 1965.

82. Memorandum, Valenti to Johnson, 25 August 1965. Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ.

83. Senators Eastland, Ervin, McClellan (D-Ark.), Dirksen, and Fong (R-Hawaii) voted for the amendment, while liberal immigration reformers Senators Kennedy, Hart, and Javits voted against it. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 147. After the vote on the Ervin amendment in the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, the Johnson White House was so convinced that the bill would now become law that it immediately began working on the details of the bill-signing ceremony. Memorandum, Jack Rosenthal to Bill Moyers, 31 August 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 73, file LE/IM 1963–65, LBJ. In a final demonstration of his influence, Dirksen blocked the Senate Judiciary Committee from immediately considering the immigration bill so as to extract one more concession, taking advantage of Johnson’s eagerness to move forward on immigration legislation to add a rider to the immigration bill to advance an unrelated piece of legislation that he favored. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 147, “Dirksen Maneuver Delays Alien Bill,” New York Times, 31 August 1965; and “Dirksen Maneuver Blocks Senate Unit Action on Immigration Bill,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 1 September 1965.

84. “Immigration Change Backed,” New York Times, 22 September 1965.

85. Senator Javits (N.Y.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (20 September 1965), S24469-24471; and “Javits Hits Curb on Immigration,” New York Times, 21 September 1965.

86. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 148.

87. Kennedy, Senator (Mass.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (20 September 1965), S24479.Google Scholar

88. “Immigration Bill Passes Senate with New Curbs,” New York Times, 23 September 1965.

89. Ibid.

90. Senator Javits (N.Y.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act, Conference Report,” Congressional Record 111 (30 September 1965), S25615; “Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (30 September 1965), H25657-25659; Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 148.

91. Ibid.

92. Kennedy, Senator (N.Y.) and Kennedy, Senator (Mass.), “Amendment of Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (20 September 1965), S24483–24885.Google Scholar

93. Memorandum, O’Brien to Johnson, 20 September 1965, Presidential Papers, WHCF, Immigration Subject Files, box 1, file EX IM 1965–67, LBJ.

94. “Immigration and Nationality Act,” Congressional Record 111 (30 September 1965), H25663-25664; Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 148.

95. “Immigration Reformer: Michael Aloysius Feighan,” New York Times, 25 August 1965. Feighan was so committed to this narrative that he spent the rest of his life presenting himself as the main architect of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. At the time of his death in 1992, the New York Times hailed him as the chief architect of the 1965 immigration law. “Ex-Rep. Michael A. Feighan, 87; Architect of ‘65 Immigration Law,” New York Times, 20 March 1992.

96. Edward M. Kennedy, “Immigration Law: Some Refinements and New Reforms,” International Migration Review 4, no. 3 (Summer 1970), 5.

97. Kennedy, “The Immigration Act of 1965,” 149.

98. As Tichenor explains, a solid alliance existed among Eastland, INS officials, and southwestern growers that motivated his efforts to block any legislation and hold any hearings over undocumented immigration from Mexico throughout most of the 1970s. Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 226–30.

99. Schwartz, The Open Society, 125.