Download now

DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author
Hart-Celler and the Effects on African American and Immigrant Incorporation
Christina M Greer
Fordham University
Abstract
It has been exactly fifty years since the passage of the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965. This
Act opened the proverbial gates for increased immigration opportunities for individuals from far
and wide, including the Caribbean and African continent. So what have been the effects of the
1965 Immigration Act on Black ethnic inclusion, incorporation, and ideas pertaining to
citizenship and expanding civil rights and liberties? As the growing waves of voluntary Black
immigrants sought a new life and economic advancement in the U.S., how did their growing
numbers affect the ways in which Black Americans conceptualized their citizenship statuses.
This paper explores the effects of the 1965 Immigration Act in conjunction with the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act on Blacks in America, both native-born and foreign-.
Chronicling the growing numbers of Black voluntary immigrants and the increased Black
diversity across the U.S., I find that the 1965 Immigration forever changed the way Blacks saw
themselves and their ethnic counterparts in an increasingly diverse Black ethnic space.
1
Introduction: Reflections on the 50 year passage
When scholars and political scientists analyze the importance of the 1965 Hart-Celler
Immigration Act signed by Democratic president Lyndon Baines Johnson, they often remark on
Johnson’s reputation as a Master of the Senate – a man who was able to pass such significant
legislation during racially turbulent times in America. What many scholars often neglect to
mention is that the 1965 Immigration Act should be seen as a triumvirate of legislative successes
for the president. In that the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act
and 1965 Immigration Act should be viewed as tri-part successes that incorporate people of color
more solidly into the promise of the American dream and the American electorate.
The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act signaled a mid-twentieth century commitment to
uphold equal protections of all citizens as outlined in the 14th amendment. The landmark
legislation outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Obviously, these principles and tenants are still a work in progress. However, the establishment
of the Civil Rights Act set the stage for many of the modern day civil rights gains seen today. In
addition, the 1965 Voting Rights Act also expanded rights and liberties of Blacks and other nonwhite groups living in the U.S. Indeed these rights were laid out in the 14th and 15th amendments
to the constitution. However, LBJ’s maneuvering with Congress secured (at least on paper)
voting rights for racial minorities, especially in the U.S. south. The Voting Rights Act is often
heralded by the Department of Justice as the most significant and effective piece of legislation
ever enacted. However, one must view the successful passage of all three Acts as building blocks
2
toward the collective legislative progress and increased incorporation for Blacks and other racial
minorities living in the U.S.1
Although these three Acts passed in the mid-1960s, all three Acts remain relevant in the twentyfirst century largely because the equal protections, franchise, and robust and equitable
immigration practices have yet to be fully realized for many people of color currently living in
the U.S. During the 1960s, LBJ was cognizant of the precarious and multifaceted relationships
he needed to establish and maintain with groups as diverse as CORE, SNCC, SCLC, NAACP,
and the National Urban League.2 These elite relationships were separate from LBJ’s awareness
of more radical individuals and groups, for example Malcolm X as well as the Black Panther
Party, who were also advocating on behalf of Black American freedom and equitable
incorporation into the polity. LBJ was cognizant that the passage of legislation that would be
perceived as assisting Blacks and other marginalized groups could signal the exit of Southern
Democrats from the party, possibly forever. In many ways, LBJ’s fears were realized. Currently,
there are currently no Democratic U.S. Senators representing southern states and southern state
houses are solidly Republican.
Plainly put, as LBJ sought legislative advancement for Blacks and people of color, he lost
members of his own party. His mastery of the Senate and his ability to get substantive legislation
1
Some scholars also include LBJ’s passage of the Housing Act and elements of his War on Poverty as
elements that further secured Black inclusion into the polity.
2
CORE: Congress on Racial Equality; SNCC: Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; SCLC:
Southern Christian Leadership Conference; NAACP: National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People
3
passed domestically is often overshadowed by his failures internationally, most specifically
pertaining to the Vietnam War. However, LBJ was keenly aware that his domestic policies were
being observed by an international audience. Each police beating at a lunch counter, every fire
hose sprayed on young children, or police dog piercing Black flesh was a reminder to LBJ that
the world was watching in the new media age. Future immigrants from around the world were
witnessing these acts committed against Black citizens and LBJ understood, “the whole world is
watching.”
Questions surrounding immigration are not new. Certainly the 1965 Immigration Act is
responsible for increased migration patterns of a more racially and ethnically diverse immigrant
pool. The foundation of America and American politics is based on race and class. That is, the
initial subjugation of Black bodies from across Africa for the purposes of free labor and capital
for a segment of the white population, then quickly translated into a racial hierarchy system to
substantiate and legitimize these behaviors. In order to better understand mid-twentieth century
immigration, one must understand what Omi and Winant (1987) explain as the ethnicity, class,
and nation based theories of American race relations in need of a “racial formation perspective”.
They argue that the racial formation perspective operates on micro (individual) and macro
(collective social structure) levels. The most poignant contribution of Omi and Winant’s
argument is the articulation of ethnicity as a political phenomenon. Therefore, observing Black
immigrants to the U.S. in the twentieth century, as the first voluntary Black immigrants, expands
our collective understanding of Black immigrants and their subsequent regionally diverse
migration once in the U.S. It is important to note that voluntary Black immigration from Africa
and the Caribbean, in contrast to the centuries of non-voluntary importation of Black Americans
4
has significant repercussions for our collective understanding of race, ethnicity, and belief in the
promise of America and what the polity can and will actually provide to its citizens with Black
skin (Greer 2013).
The immigration of Black Americans from Africa and the Caribbean after the passage of the
1965 Immigration Act was not the first time America had experienced voluntary immigration by
Black groups. During the earlier twentieth century, from 1900 through the 1940s, there was
small scale immigration of Blacks from the Caribbean, for example, Jamaica, Bahamas, and
Barbados. For many, they worked in particular agricultural sectors and seasonal occupations and
return migration to their home country was common (SOURCE). There was an even smaller
migration of African immigrants to the U.S., primarily in the 1930s to the early 1960s, before the
passage of the Hart-Celler Act. Many African migrants came to the U.S. and attended HBCU’s3
along the eastern seaboard. Several returned to their respective home countries to assist with
independence efforts. For example, future Nigerian president Nnamdi Azikiwe attended Lincoln
College, a historically black college in Chester County, Pennsylvania, west of Philadelphia. After
meeting the future Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah in the U.S., Azikiwe persuaded
Nkrumah to attend Lincoln College as well. Additionally, another segment of African scholars
entered the U.S. in the late 1950s due to the efforts of a young Senator from Massachusetts.
Senator John F. Kennedy formed the African American Student Foundation (AASF) in which 81
3
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
5
African students entered the U.S. in 1959, with an additional 250 students from Kenya and
eastern African nations receiving airfare and scholarships.4
Brief History: The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act) and the 1952
Immigration and Nationality Act (The McCarran-Walter Act)
In 1924 Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act which allowed a limited the number of
immigrants entry into the U.S. through a national origins quota. The Act primarily assisted
Southern and Eastern Europeans through a quota providing immigration visas to two percent of
the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national
census.5 Therefore, this new Act skewed toward European immigration and explicitly and
deliberately excluded immigrants from Asia, Africa, and “Arabs”. The purpose of the 1924 Act
was “to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity,” therefore, the explicit exclusion of Asiatic
people in particular. More specifically, Japanese individuals who had migrated to the U.S. before
the 1924 Act was passed would find their relatives no longer eligible for entry into the U.S.6
Congress then revised the 1924 Act in 1952 by passing the Immigration and Nationality Act
(The McCarran-Walter Act), an act to revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and
nationality. This updated and revised immigration Act moved away from excluding immigrants
based simply upon country of origin. However, the 1952 Act was focused upon denying
4
One of the most notable participants was Barack Obama, Sr. from Kenya.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/JFK-and-the-Student-Airlift.aspx
5
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act
6
It should be noted that Ellis Island is one of the nation’s oldest immigration prisons largely for
unaccompanied Asian women who dared to enter the U.S.
6
immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, and/or politically radical. The
U.S. was forced to revisit past immigration practices and exclusions after two world wars and
widespread famine and poverty in Europe. The 1952 Act was amended to accept those who were
willing and able to assimilate into the US economic, social, and political structures, which
restructured how immigration law was handled. This bill was vetoed by President Harry Truman
who regarded the bill as “un-American” and discriminatory, but the bill passed by Congress
without the approval of the president.
The Immigration Act of 1965 (The Hart-Celler Act)
“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will
not restructure the shape of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our
power.”
-President L.B. Johnson signing the 1965 Immigration Act
at the steps of the Statue of Liberty in New York, N.Y.7
With LBJ as a veteran of Washington, D.C.’s political maneuvering, one must contend with his
ability as president to understand, and manipulate, all levels of Congressional leadership.8 The
7
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/651003.asp
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. Volume II, entry 546, pp.
1037-1040. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966.
8
LBJ entered public office in 1937. He served 12 years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Texas (10th District), 12 years as a U.S. Senator from Texas in which two of those years he was the
Senate Majority Whip and for six years he was the Senate Majority Leader. He then served as Vice
7
passage of the 1965 Immigration Act was also during a post War moment in the U.S. when
European immigrants were slowly and steadily “becoming white” (Ignatiev 1995). That is, due
to the unfolding civil rights struggles, many European immigrants were being incorporated into
the tent of whiteness to 1) secure their status as Americans, 2) further protect the dominance of
white homogeneity in America, and 3) further differentiate themselves from “non-whites”, read
Asians, Africans, “Arabs”, and those from Latin America. Under previous iterations of U.S.
immigration Acts, admission to America was largely based on an immigrant's country of birth,
largely from Southern and Eastern European nations. Previously, seventy percent of all
immigrant slots were allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and
Germany — and went mostly unused. Leading up to the passage of the 1965 Act, the waiting
lists for the small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and
elsewhere in Eastern and Southern Europe were limited. In post War America, Congress’ interest
in shutting its borders was an appealing enterprise for many white elites who feared the ills –
economic, public health, moral – that would presumably arrive with “lesser” immigrants. That is,
immigrants who had no possibility of ever “becoming white”.9
President for roughly two years before ascending to the presidency. Essentially, LBJ was well versed in the
idiosyncrasies of Washington, D.C. politics.
9
Initially migrants from Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere weren’t eligible for acceptance into an
American whiteness. However, as immigration from Africa, the Caribbean, Asia, and Latin America
continued to increase, incorporation of European immigrants from particular countries were steadily
included in America’s definition of whiteness and were slowly afforded the privileges – economic, social,
and political – that American whiteness affords.
8
Somehow, LBJ and his emissaries were able to persuade their colleagues that the passage of the
1965 Immigration Act would change little. LBJ states at the signing, “For it does repair a very
deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in
the conduct of the American Nation.” His use of vague historic language implies that the
passage of this bill is to atone for past inequitable immigration practices, such as the 1924 and
1952 Acts, not necessarily forward thinking immigration and inclusion policies. For the first
time, the 1965 Immigration Act gave higher preference to the relatives of American citizens and
permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. He stated, “This is a simple
test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country--to its growth, to its
strength, to its spirit--will be the first that are admitted to this land.” Therefore, the new
preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law was as follows: Unmarried adult sons
and daughters of U.S. citizens; Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of
permanent resident aliens; Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional
ability; Married children of U.S. citizens; Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twentyone; Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply;
Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and
the Middle East. The last and most vague of the preferences is possibly the most telling:
Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences. Essentially, admission is being extended to
everyone else who had previously been excluded. This last clause assisted Afro-Caribbeans and a
small percentage of African immigrants gain entry into the U.S. following its passage.
9
Immigration Act False Predictions
The passage of the 1965 Immigration Act presented several quandaries for members of
Congress. Although LBJ clearly stated at the signing, “This measure that we will sign today will
really make us truer to ourselves both as a country and as a people. It will strengthen us in a
hundred unseen ways.” As LBJ was adamant that the passage of this law would not change the
racial composition of America, nor would it create competition for jobs for [white] Americans,
several members of Congress were skeptical. Therefore, LBJ deployed various Democratic
Senators to persuade their colleagues and the American public that little to nothing would change
with the passage of this act. Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of the bill argued, “With the
end of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries other than those of
northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will have to compete and qualify
in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down.
There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the
people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from
those countries because they have no family ties in the U.S.”10 Essentially, Celler argued that the
racial composition of the country would not change because there were not enough Asians and
Africans currently residing in the U.S. to even make the request to have relatives immigrate.
Similarly, Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) stated, “The
bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It
will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their
10
Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21812.
10
jobs.”11 Many Americans feared the loss of jobs and livelihood with an influx of new
immigrants. Many of their fears were ultimately confirmed with the influx of immigrants from
Latin America and the Caribbean. Most specifically, Caribbean immigration greatly increased
due to the Immigration Act provision which argued for the entrée of “skilled and unskilled
workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.” It was under earlier
provisions that allowed Afro-Caribbeans to enter the U.S. as domestics, nurses, teachers, etc.
(Migration Policy Institute). However, the passage of the Immigration Act allowed for Black
immigration based on relative’s citizenship and not necessarily professional skill and need.
Although the vast majority of Caribbean migrants south their economic fortunes in Central
America and the Panama Canal more specifically, those who did decide to migrate to the U.S. in
the first three decades of the twentieth century provide a steady stream of migrants. The foreignborn Black population increased from 20,000 in 1900 to roughly 100,000 by 1930. Restrictive
migration laws in 1917, 1921, 1924 slowed Caribbean migration, as did the Great Depression.
However, over 140,000 Afro-Caribbeans migrated through U.S. ports between 1899 and 1937,
and largely settled in Northeastern cities and Manhattan, N.Y. After WWII began, roughly
50,000 Caribbeans migrated between 1941 and 1950. Roughly 123,000Caribbean immigrants
came to the U.S. in the 1950s, but after the passage of the 1965 Immigration act, the number of
Caribbeans increased to 470,000 immigrants in the latter 1960s. For example, before the
Immigration Act passage there were 9,000 Jamaicans in the U.S., after the bill’s passage, the
number increased to 75,000. In the subsequent decade the number of Jamaicans increased to
11
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.
11
140,000 by 1980, and the number further increased to 208,000 migrants by 1990. Essentially, 25
years after the passage of the Immigration Act, 872,000 people had migrated from the Caribbean
to the U.S.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Caribbean population in the U.S. has increased
more than 17-fold over the past half-century. However, three-quarters of Caribbeans currently
residing in the country arrived from 1980-2000.12 This influx is a direct result of the passage and
subsequent implementation of the Immigration Act. Today there are roughly 3 million selfidentified Afro-Caribbeans in the U.S. and almost 1.5 million African immigrants. People of
Caribbean and African immigrant descent represent roughly 10 percent of the total Black
population in the U.S. Although there was a steady influx of Caribbean immigrants post the
passage of the 1965 Immigration Act due to more open legal provisions as well as increased
communication between the U.S. and Caribbean nations, Black migration equaled levels of
Mexican and Canadian immigration (SOURCE). Since 2000, Caribbean migration has decreased
compared to immigration from African countries. However, since African are a more recent
immigrant population, Caribbean numbers in the U.S. still outnumber those of African
populations, despite the severe increase in African migration in the past twenty years.
The United States Refugee Act of 1980: (Public Law 96-212)
In 1980 there was an amendment to the earlier 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act in the form
of the 1980 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act. This Act was created to provide a permanent
and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States for refugees of special
humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the
12
http://www.ibtimes.com/caribbean-americans-invisible-minority-seeking-identity-affirmation-795709
12
effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted. It was a provision that
assisted African passage to the U.S. This Act also helps explain the diverse locales throughout
the U.S. in which African migrants settled. Many Africans were either placed in states or towns
which would be able to absorb an increase in population. In other circumstances, African
immigrants settled in non-traditional urban centers due to pre-existing social or ethnic-group
networks established either in their home country or during multi-stage migration sojourns.
Then and Now: 1965-2005
Although the actual numbers of native-born blacks and foreign-born black people in the U.S. has
increased over the past several decades. In 1950, the U.S. Census estimated 15,042,286 people of
African descent. By 2005, Census estimates placed people of African descent at roughly
34,962,569 (See Appendix A).13 Not only has Black ethnic diversity increased, but the
geographic diversity in which these new Blacks residents settle. No longer are Blacks
concentrated in major cities along the eastern seaboard. African immigrant populations can be
found in diverse locales from small towns in Maine, mid-sized cities in Minnesota, and major
cities in Arizona, to name just a few. The diversity of African and Caribbean immigrants also
extends to the sending nations from which they hail. These changes in where Blacks settle, no
longer just urban centers, has as much to do with strong preexisting social networks of
immigrants from their home country or multi-stage migrations, refugee placement by the U.S.
government, and previous knowledge of locations where Black economic success is plausible or
possible. Consequently, due to changing urban prospects, Blacks, both old and new, have begun
13
2005: Total U.S. Population 288,378,137; Total Black Population 34,962,569; Total Foreign-born Black
Population: African1,252,020 Afro-Caribbean 2,247,999
13
to move to rural and suburban areas throughout the U.S. Although Black immigration has
steadily increased over the last forty years, people of African descent, that is native-born and
foreign-born blacks, have become the third largest group in America. Latino populations have
replaced blacks as the second largest group in the country. Unsurprisingly, tension have arisen
between newly arriving Latino immigrant populations as they settle and set-up political and
economic pursuits in urban centers which have been historically Black dominated cities (Carter
2007).
Changing Race Relations
So how does the migration of “new Blacks” change how race relations play out? That is, as new
Blacks migrate to diverse locales throughout the U.S., how do their incorporation and
assimilation processes differ from those of their native born Black counterparts. First, the
relationships Black immigrants have with their white counterparts can differ from native-born
black Americans quite substantially depending on geographic locale, percentage of Black
Americans living in the respective community, or whites perceptions of Blacks, immigrants, and
any knowledge they may or may not have about Africa and Caribbean nations.14
Black relationships with whites can directly affect the ways in which Black Americans interact
with Black immigrants. Further complicating this narrative are the relationships native-born
Blacks and Black immigrants establish with other non-Blacks who are not white. Historically, as
immigrants were excluded from the protected whiteness category, Black and other non-white
14
Add further scholarship of Watts-Smith, Gooding, and Austin...
14
immigrants found themselves on the outside of the power structure looking in. However, as race
relations and racism have evolved in American democracy, one may argue that the protected
“white versus non-white” category has mutated into a form of “black versus non-black” category
whereby Black immigrants seek to remain outside of what they perceive is last place. Not
surprisingly, this strategy for assimilation and success by particular black immigrants has created
tensions and distrust between Black groups leaving Black Americans feeling as though Black
immigrants are receiving “all of the benefits and none of the burdens” (Greer 2013). During the
large waves of Afro-Caribbean migration to the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s and in the 1970s
and 1980s for African immigrants, Black Americans had been actively organizing and fighting
for civil rights for nearly a century. Therefore, the possibility that Black immigrants would select
a category separate from that of their Black American counterparts has led to levels of distrust
and competition (Greer 2013, Watts-Smith 2014).
The increased competition between Black American and Black immigrants has increased
misunderstandings in particular communities and parts of the country. For example, in struggling
post-industrial cities which have been “dormant” for many years due to white flight and middle
class flight are now experiencing a desire to reemerge and reinvest. Many of these cities –
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit – are looking to immigrants to assist in these rejuvenation efforts.
However, many of these abandoned cities have had disproportionate Black American
populations who either chose to stick it out or had nowhere else to migrate to. Either way, the
resentment between the old and new Blacks has led to mistrust and greater misunderstandings
that have at times prevented necessary coalition building efforts.
15
Due to the sometimes weakened coalitions, the ways in which ethnically diverse Black groups
have selected their elected officials has begun to change. No longer is there an assumption of
racial homogeneity, especially when observing lower level local elections (Rogers 2009,
Gooding 2014). Many Black ethnic groups have begun to select and elect officials who reflect
their ethnic backgrounds and specific policy and issue areas. These nuanced distinctions have
ushered in a new twenty-first century Black politic that scholars are beginning to dissect (Austin
et al 2011, Gooding 2015, Greer 2013, Rogers 2009, Watts-Smith 2014). With the increased
migration of African and Afro-Caribbean groups to and throughout the U.S., how do race
relations within and between groups change, alter, or adapt in these new settings? Ideally,
descriptive and substantive politics would intersect in choosing elected leaders, but realistically,
that is not always possible.
As Black immigrant populations increase, what happens to political relationships between “old
Blacks” and new Black immigrant groups? Because of increased Caribbean and African
immigration, the face of Black leadership has changed as well, which in some communities has
created a perceived advantage for Black immigrant candidates who can claim a “both/and”
identity. That is, a Black racial identity as well as a particular ethnic identity in order to gain the
maximum number of votes and support. Most recently in communities in Miami and New York,
both historically Caribbean and Black American political districts, candidates have explicitly
used their ethnic identity to garner support within their district, especially if running against a
Black American (Greer 2013, Austin et al. 2011). They have also used their Black racial identity
within the district, especially if running against a white opponent. For example, Yvette Clark’s
16
use of a racial and ethnic identity to win her Brooklyn Congressional seat, in an area once led by
openly proud Afro-Caribbean (Bajan) Shirley Chisholm.15
The success stories for African elected officials are just now beginning. There has been a recent
success in Minneapolis, MN with the Democratic primary electoral success of Ilhan Omar who
will most likely be elected to the Minnesota State House. In many communities, aspiring
African politicos have yet to decide exactly who should appear on the ballot. Therefore, for
example, in City Council elections in Brooklyn and the Bronx, there have been almost a dozen
individuals from the same ethnic enclave all running for the same seat. Since no one abdicates
before election day, a non-African has handedly won the seat in what are now increasingly
growing African electoral districts. However, it is only a matter of time before African
candidates begin to coordinate their efforts, social networks, and financial resources in order to
successful win political districts with growing African populations.
Conclusion
The Mystery of LBJ and his passage of the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, and the
Hart-Celler Immigration Act continues to stump scholars of political science and racial politics.
When evaluating the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act and LBJ’s justification to pass a bill
that would largely make no real changes in the American political, economic, and social
landscapes, one is left to wonder whether LBJ and his allies truly believed this sentiment. When
signing the bill, did LBJ truly believe no immigrants would come to the U.S., especially those
15
To a lesser extent, Republican Mia Love (Utah) was able to use her racial and ethnic identity to secure
her U.S. Congressional seat in 2014. She successfully argues that she was not like the larger Black racial
group due to her ethnicity as a Haitian American and a child of Afro-Caribbean immigrants.
17
from Asia and Africa? Fifty years after the passage of the Act, does it really matter whether or
not LBJ genuinely believed he was passing an innocuous act or whether he was (yet again)
duping his fellow colleagues in Congress, especially those within his own party.
So for many the question remains, “Did the Master of the Senate dupe Congress on purpose for
the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act?” Does it really matter what the real answer is? When
reviewing the Congressional debates, Senators are clear to point out to their colleagues that this
bill will have no substantive or long lasting effects. They are also adamant that this bill will not
change the racial composition of the country. However, LBJ had already worked with Civil
Rights leaders from across the country to successfully pass the Civil Right Act a year prior and
had spent copious amounts of political capital to assist the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Therefore, to accept that the Immigration Act was merely a symbolic piece of legislation would
have taken some serious suspension of belief and reality for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Southern Democrats exhibited regional distinctions from their Northern counterparts. However,
ultimately their votes assisted in the passage of a bill that would usher in widespread AfroCaribbean, African, Asian, and Latin American migration for decades to come. The partisan
distinctions were apparent as well, in that Republicans initially expressed hesitance toward the
plans of Senators Hart and Celler. However, the power of persuasion by LBJ ultimately won in
the end.
Ultimately, the most long standing effect of the passage of the Immigration Act, beyond the
widespread immigration of individuals from non-European countries, was the Civil War that
erupted within the Democratic Party. LBJ was clear in his belief that the passage of this act (in
18
conjunction with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act) could lose Southern Democrats
for a generation, if not forever. He was correct, Southern Democrats viewed this triumvirate of
legislation (as well as LBJ’s impending housing legislation) as a bridge too far for the party as
well as for their constituencies. Southern Democrats could no longer explain away the actions of
their Texas president. If they were to consider their own reelection prospects, after the passage of
the series of civil rights legislations, largely due to the bullying and pressure of LBJ, the
Democrats witnessed splinters within the party that have rippling effects in today’s politics.
As Black immigrants have continued to navigate the economic, social, and political landscapes
in the U.S., the partisanship of Black ethnics has been relatively homogenous. The vast majority
of Blacks in the U.S., both native-born and immigrant, identify with the Democratic party
(Rigueur 2014). This may be because the Republican Party on the national level has largely
ceded their political interests to the Democratic party.16 Thus far any movement toward the
Republican party has been incremental and largely within the African population. There are
several reasons why the Republican party may look slightly attractive to the newest arrived
immigrants. First, many conservative Republican policies are more in line with policies from
individual’s home countries. The reason why Republicans have not been able to capture African
votes full stop is largely due to the perception of the Republican party as racist and anti-Black.
Although Africans have their own negotiations with Black racial identity once living in the U.S.,
many are not willing to cast their lot with a party that is perceived as racist, anti-immigrant, and
16
There is a more candidate centered politic for Black voters on the local level whereby we see a bit more
willingness to vote for a Republican candidate for lower office. However, the willingness for Blacks to vote
for a Republican candidate at the presidential level on average for the past twenty years has been roughly
9%.
19
anti-Black, even if policy positions may be more congruent. Second, for those who do choose to
align themselves with the Republican party, for those who have aspirations for elected office,
aligning oneself with the Republican party is an almost guaranteed shortcut for a particular lower
level office. It is on this level where Black immigrants slowly using GOP for advancement.
However, the election of 2016 and the overt racialized rhetoric of the Republican nominee may
alter the willingness for African and other Black groups to align themselves with the party for
quite some time.
Ultimately, the demographics of Blacks living in the U.S. has been changing for several decades.
These “new” Black groups raise interesting questions for political representatives and elite level
politics and representation. However, increased Black diversity also raises larger questions
surrounding descriptive versus substantive representation for Black ethnics. No longer do
communities just have the choice of choosing a Black representative, in ethnically diverse Black
neighborhoods, Black voters often have the choice between both racial and ethnic
representatives. However, these new demographics bring interesting questions pertaining to
substantive representation for Black communities and what type of Black representative will be
best for an ethnically diverse community. Therefore, in the twenty-first century, we must rethink
our understanding of race and identity politics and coalitions. What are some possibilities for
substantive coalition building among Black ethnic groups, locally and nationally? How will the
field of Political Science continue to interrogate the significance of the Immigration Act for
Black groups then and now? Ultimately, the study of the increased Black ethnic diversity post
1965 is just the beginning of an important conversation that will affect local, state, and national
politics for generations to come. I wonder what LBJ would think of this.
20
Bibliography
Austin, Sharon D. Wright, Richard T. Middleton, and Rachel Yon. “The Effect of Racial Group
Consciousness on the Political Participation of African Americans and Black Ethnics in MiamiDade County, Florida.” Political Research Quarterly (2011): 1065912911404563.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Franklin Jr. Gilliam. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation and Black
Empowerment.” The American Political Science Review 84, no. 2 (1990): 377-93.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy. “Black Immigrants: the Experience of Invisibility and Inequality.” Journal
of Black Studies, no.1 (September 1972).
Butler, Kristin. “Black Immigrants in the U.S.: A Comparison with Native-Blacks and Other
Immigrants.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47, no.2 (January 1994).
Carter, Niambi M. The Black/White Paradigm Revisited: African Americans, Immigration, Race,
and Nation in Durham, North Carolina. A Dissertation for Duke University. ProQuest, 2007.
Chong, Dennis, and Reuel Rogers. “Racial Solidarity and Political Participation.” Political
Behavior 27, no. 4 (2005): 347-74.
Conover, Pamela Johnston. “The Influence of Group Identifications on Political Perception and
Evaluation.” The Journal of Politics 46, no. 3 (1984): 760-85.
21
Conover, Pamela Johnston. “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of
Political Science 18, no. 1 (1988): 51-76.
Dawson, Michael. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994.
Dawson, Michael. Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African-American Political
Ideologies. University of Chicago Press. 2001.
Du Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.
1903.
Edwards, Brent Hayes. “Uses of Diaspora.” Social Text 19, no. 1 (2001): 45-74.
Edwards, Brent Hayes. The Practice of Diaspora: Literature, Translation and the Rise of Black
Internationalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Eyerman, Ron. Cultural Trauma: Slavery and the Formation of African American Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002.
Gillespie, Andra. Whose Black Politics?: Cases in Post-Racial Black Leadership. New
York: Routledge. 2009.
22
Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard,
1993.
Gilroy, Paul. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. 2000.
Greer, Christina. Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Gooding, Cory. Politics and Culture in Context: Afro-Caribbean Political Incorporation in New
York and Los Angeles during the Obama Era. A Dissertation for the University of California Los
Angeles. 2014.
Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference,
edited by Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.
Hamilton, Charles. The Black Experience in American Politics. New York: Putnam Publishing
Group. 1973.
Hanchard, Michael. Party/Politics: Horizons in Black Political Thought. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
23
Hanchard, Michael. Orpheus and Power: The Movimento Negro of Rio De Janeiro and São
Paulo, Brazil, 1945-1988. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1994.
Harris, Fredrick. The Price of the Ticket: Barack Obama and the Rise and Decline of Black
Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. 2014.
Hayes, Robin J., and Christina M. Greer. “The International Dimensions of Everyday Black
Political Participation.” Journal of African American Studies. Vol 18, Issue 3, p 353-371. Sept
2014.
Hellwig, David. “Black Meets Black: African American Reaction to West Indian Immigrants in
the 1920s” South Atlantic Quarterly 77, no.2 (Spring 1978).
Holder, Calvin. “The Rise of the West Indian Politician in NYC, 1900-1952.” Afro-American in
NY Life and History 4, no. 1 (January 1980).
Holder, Calvin. “Making Ends Meet: West Indian Economic Adjustment in NYC; 1900-1952.”
Wadabagei: A Journal of the Caribbean and its Diaspora 1, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 1998).
Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge. 1995.
Iton, Richard. In Search of the Black Fantastic : Politics and Popular Culture in the Post-Civil
Rights Era. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008.
24
Kasinitz, Phil. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. 1992.
Marx, Anthony. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of the United States, South Africa and
Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.
McClain, Paula, Jessica D. Johnson Carew, Eugene Walton Jr., and Candis S. Watts. “Group
Membership, Group Identity and Group Consciousness: Measures of Racial Identity in American
Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (2009): 471-85.
Meriwether, James. Proudly We Can Be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935-1961.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2002.
Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchuk. “Group Consciousness
and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 25, no. 3 (1981): 494-511.
Morris, Aldon. Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for
Change. New York: Free Press. 1984.
Nobles, Melissa. Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics. Stanford:
Stanford University Press. 2000.
25
Olsen, Marvin E. “Social and Political Participation of Blacks.” American Sociological Review
35, no. 4 (1970): 682-97.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States: 1960s-1990s. New
York: Routledge. 1986.
Rigueur, Leah Wright. The Loneliness of the Black Republican: Pragmatic Politics and the
Pursuit of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Robinson, Cedric J. Black Marxism: The Making of a Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, 2000 (1983).
Roediger, David R. The Wages of Whiteness Race and the Making of the American Working
Class. London: Verso, 2007 (1999).
Rogers, Reuel. Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity, Exception or Exit. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 2006.
Sayad, Abdelmalek. The Suffering of the Immigrant. Cambridge: Polity. 2004.
Tate, Katherine. From Protest to Politics: the New Black Voters in American Elections.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1993.
26
Thomas, Kevin. “A Demographic Profile of Black Caribbean Immigrants in the U.S.” Migration
Policy Institute. April 2002.
Tillery Jr., Alvin B. Between Homeland and Motherland: Africa, U.S. Foreign Policy and Black
Leadership in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2011.
Ture, Kwame and Charles Hamilton. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. New York:
Vintage. 1967.
Verba, Sidney, Bashiruddin Ahmed, and Anil H. Bhatt. Caste, Race, and Politics; A
Comparative Study of India and the United States. Beverley Hills: Sage. 1971.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman Nie. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social
Equality. New York: Harper and Row. 1972.
Walters, Ronald W. Black Presidential Politics in America: A Strategic Approach. New York:
State University of New York Press. 1988.
Waters, Mary. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1999.
Watts-Smith, Candice. Black Mosaic: The Politics of Black Pan-Ethnic Diversity. New York:
NYU Press. 2014.
27
Appendix A
U. S. Black Population 1950-2005
40000000
14
35000000
12
30000000
25000000
8
20000000
6
15000000
4
Percent of Total Population
Total Black Population
10
Total Number of Black Americans
Percent of Total U.S. Population
10000000
2
5000000
0
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
Year
28