parents named me Billy—not William, or even Bill, but Billy. They chose this name because they had been told by doctors and others in the community that since they were in America they had to give their children American names and record our births with those names. They chose Billy for me because they had heard of other boys called Billy. Little did they know that most Billys had birth certificates under the name of William. Growing up, I had Mexican American friends whom I called Pancho, Pedro, Leonardo, Maria, and Reynaldo, whose birth certificates bore the names Frank, Peter, Leonard, Mary, and Ray. Although my birth certificate reads “Billy,” my parents, like all Chinese immigrants, gave me a Chinese name: Sun Yuen. Chinese names, like Native American names, have an intended meaning. Stupidly, on my part, I never bothered learning the meaning of my Chinese name until I was in high school. I found out that it means “new source”—a name that I rather like. We have come some distance since that era. Today, recording a child’s birth as José or Tseming or Kwame is not unusual.
I think of my clients when I drive around the state. Ironically, immigration authorities deport Latinos in California from places named Modesto, Salinas, San Francisco, San José, Los Angeles, Fresno, and San Diego.
Of course I think of my clients when I hear the rhetoric of today’s restrictionists. When neo-nativists think of refugees and immigrants the words that come to their minds are economic drain, welfare recipients, public school costs, non-English speakers, crime, separatism, conflict, and non-assimilation. But to those of us who know and work with, or who are ourselves, immigrants and refugees, thinking of refugees and immigrants conjures images of family, hard work, courage, cultural enrichment, and innovation.
When I first started working in immigration as a legal services immigration attorney in 1974, most of my clients were either Mexican or Chinese. Their names were Cabral, Ayalde, Lau, Chan and occasionally an oddity like my Cuban-Chinese client, Jacinto Cuan. But by the end of the 1970’s and into the 1980’s, the client list included Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nigerians, Liberians, Iranians, Egyptians, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Haitians, and South Africans. The names were different. Atanacio, Pineda, Mattoto, Ibrahim, Patel, Balian. Of course during this period, in addition to the Cardoza-Fonsecas and the Wongs that I represented, I also counselled the Walls and the McMullens and others from Canada and Europe including teenagers and young adults from places like Great Britain, France, Ireland, and Scandinavian countries looking for a free deportation ticket back home after money had run out here.
Many friends and colleagues have encouraged me to think about my clients and their impact on our society as I have proceeded on this project. I am deeply grateful for their counsel: Roberta Achtenberg, Ian Ayres, John Barton, John Burton, John Hart Ely, Ed Epstein, Lawrence Friedman, Tom Grey, J. D. Hokoyama, Kevin Johnson, Jerry López, Shauna Marshall, Bill McGowan, Joyce Hing McGowan, Miguel Méndez, Mary Morgan, Rose Matsui Ochi, José Padilla, Eva Jefferson Patterson, Nancy Pelosi, Drucilla Ramey, Cruz Reynoso, Bill Rojas, Bill Simon, John Tateishi, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Michael Wald, Patricia Williams, Lucie White, and Diane Wong. Friends at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center have continued to inspire my work: Kathy Brady, Eric Cohen, Sister Martha Garcia, Susan Lydon, Nancy Mowery, Rebecca Rivera, Anaya Rose, and Mark Silverman. Several students helped along the way: Michelle Alvarez, Jon Blazer, Stephen Carpenter, Daina Chiu, Selena Dong, Shubha Ghosh, David Kazanjian, Margaret Lin, Stephanie Martz, John Russ, Eric Talley, and Rufus Whitley. My administrative assistant, Yvonne Yazzie, has been a constant resource. And I am sincerely indebted to the New York University Press editor-in-chief, Niko Pfund, and the series editors, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, for their trust and confidence in me.
Of course none of my work is possible or worthwhile without the love, support, encouragement, example, and understanding of my wife, Lenora, and our children, Eric, Sharon, and Julianne. They are my spirit, bringing perspective, balance, sanity, and sustenance to my life.
Introduction
Proposition 187, an initiative to exclude undocumented children from public schools and bar their families from medical care, passes overwhelmingly in California. Congressional proposals that would reduce legal immigration by a third and preclude legal immigrants from receiving public assistance receive strong bipartisan support. The Immigration and Naturalization Service imposes strict asylum rules: applicants—even the poorest and most sympathetic—are prohibited from working, and any would-be refugee who misses the filing deadline is forever barred from applying.
Is there any doubt that we are experiencing one of the most potent periods of anti-immigrant fervor in the United States? Nativists, xenophobes, and exclusionists have long been a part of the American landscape. From time to time their rituals influence immigration policies.1. We are in the middle of such a time. If we listen closely, today’s fears echo those of other eras: job loss, shrinking resources, a fracturing national culture, all due to a flood of immigrants. Much of the public as well as policymakers are listening indeed.
Much of America is hurting economically, insecure about its economic future. Much of America looks around and sees declining city services, failing public schools, and an inequitable tax system. And much of America looks around and senses change in its surroundings—change that is puzzling or worrisome, rather than natural or enlightening. To many who make up this part of America, the explanation that restrictionists (those who would severely reduce immigrant visas) offer up—the immigrant as culprit—makes sense. Immigrants in the workforce are easily picked out. Immigrants on the street not speaking English or dressed differently are impossible to miss. The traditional image of the immigrant as vital to the economy and to society, as a contributor of new energy and innovation, is facilely cast aside as outdated and wrong.
Since 1965, America has experienced significant demographic changes. The African American population has increased by more than a third, while Latino and Asian Pacific American growth has been even more dramatic. The Latino population has almost tripled; today, more than one in ten Americans are Latino. The Asian Pacific American population which numbered under a million in 1965 is estimated at almost 9 million today—some 3.3 percent of the total population. One of four Americans is a person of color, and the proportion is even greater in states like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois.
Immigration has accounted for much of the growth in the Latino and Asian American communities. From 1971 to 1990, nearly 9 million immigrants entered from Asian and Latin American countries.2. Today, more than half a million immigrants are entering annually, and Asian and Latino immigrants make up 75 percent of that number. If current trends continue, the U.S. census projects that by the year 2050, the population will be almost evenly divided between Anglos and people of color (53 percent Anglo, 14 percent African American, 25 percent Latino, and 8 percent Asian Pacific American). Of the projected population of 390 million in the year 2050, one-third will be post-1970 immigrants and their descendants. In certain parts of the United States, the impact will be felt even sooner. For example, by the year 2020 non-Hispanic whites will be a minority in California, a mere 34 percent of the population; Latinos will be 36 percent, followed by Asians at 20 percent and African Americans at 8 percent. Not since the first decade of the twentieth century—when southern and eastern Europeans entered in large numbers for the first time—has there been such a dramatic change in the ethnic composition of the nation.
These demographic trends, altering the ethnic composition of America, have defined the debate for many modern-day restrictionists on what it means to become an American. For them, allegations that immigrants harm the economy become pretextual, secondary, or unnecessary. They are troubled by the increasing numbers of Asian and Latino faces that have appeared seemingly overnight. They are more troubled by the cultural and social impact of these immigrants than by their economic influence. Disturbed by so many non-English-speaking foreigners, they construe much of the behavior of these newcomers as a lack of loyalty to the nation.
The current cycle of nativism comes at a time when immigration is dominated by Asians and Latinos. As a result, the discussion of who is and who is not American, who can and cannot become American, goes beyond the technicalities of citizenship and residency requirements; it strikes at the very