The Unimaginable Irony of Rick Santorum

We know today that racial categories are arbitrary from a scientific point of view. They make sense only subjectively, and what qualifies as “white” is changing all the time. After World War One, when Congress sought to design a new immigration policy, it was very clear that Italians and Jews were not considered white. To understand what this meant for Rick Santorum’s family, consider his grandfather who immigrated to this country from Italy in 1930 at the age of seven with his family. Because Congress had passed a law in 1924 restricting Italian immigration, the Santorum family was among a lucky few Italians who made the voyage in 1930.

In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.

The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The Immigration Act of 1924 created one kind of America and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 created another. The former was explicitly based on race and what we consider today to be pseudoscience.

Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Jews, Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans in order to “maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population”. [Sen. David] Reed [R-PA] told the Senate that earlier legislation “disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here”. Southern/Eastern Europeans and Jews, he believed, arrived sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.

Some of the law’s strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. Most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.

Nothing is ever simple with history and we know, of course, that Nazi Germany made a rather famous alliance with Mussolini’s Italy. But when the Nazis came to power the first non-German book they ordered to be reprinted was The Passing of the Great Race, and Adolf Hitler actually wrote to Madison Grant to inform him that, “The book is my Bible.” Madison’s book was quite explicit that the Italians had certain talents, like for art, but were part of an inferior Mediterranean “worthless race-type” that should perhaps be sterilized along with “the criminal, the diseased, and the insane.”

All of this is a long way of setting the predicate for what follows here. You might think that Rick Santorum would look back at the immigration policies of the 1920’s with something other than wistful sentimentality. But, you would be wrong. Here’s what Rick Santorum has to say about the good old days:

“Let me ask you a question. Since 2000 there have been a little over six million net new jobs created. What percentage of those net new jobs are held by people not born in this country? Half? Sixty? All of them. There are fewer native-born Americans working today than there was [sic] in 2000, in spite of 17 million more workers in the workforce. So when people tell me the problem is just illegal immigration, they’re wrong. They’re wrong… We are almost at the same level of non-native born in this country they were at in 1920. And in 1920 they realized, wait a minute, it’s affecting our workers. Wages have stagnated, everybody knows that. Why? Part of the reason. Median income is going down. Why? Part of the reason is that we’re bringing floods of legal, not illegal, legal immigrants into the country.”

This is a precise echo of the language used at the time the 1924 immigration bill was being debated. If the primary purpose of the Act was “to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity,” the political support for the bill was built on anxiety that non-Native born Americans were taking all the jobs. So, when it came to Italian immigration, one concern was that Italians were racially inferior. Another was that, as Senator Reed put it, Italians “arrived sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.” Yet, for the average voter, their concerns were less about high-falutin academic theories than competition for low-wage work.

Anyway you slice it, though, the result was that fewer Italians were allowed into this country in the period between 1924 and 1965 than would have otherwise been the case.

So, there are some pretty big ironies here. One is that the Santorums were among the undesirables who slipped through despite the new restrictions, and that one of their grandchildren went on to take Senator Reed’s seat in the U.S. Senate. The other is that that grandchild would go on to praise Senator Reed’s efforts and call for new immigration policies aimed at preserving an “American identity” and “the ideal of American homogeneity.”

 

Author: BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.

22 thoughts on “The Unimaginable Irony of Rick Santorum”

  1. I mention this as often as is practical to people who get on the “But the brown people need to emigrate LEGALLY.”

    I ask them when their families made it to the U.S., and am able to respond to their answer, whatever it is, by saying truthfully that they owe their American citizenship to a completely different set of immigration laws which were open to accepting their predecessors. Those laws are now gone.

    Modern immigration law is absurd, immoral, and does not respond to the needs and actions of real human beings. That’s why millions feel the real, human NEED to flout it.

    1. Enlighten me. tell me what other major country has a looser immigration policy than the USA.

      Germany doesn’t even let the grandchildren of immigrants on work visas to be citizens. They are still “Turks”, even if Grandpa came from Turkey and Dad was born in Germany.

      1. Our overall set of immigration laws are now much tighter than was the case during the time that the families of almost all Americans emigrated.

        “Why don’t the browns just wait and emigrate legally, just like my family did?” Many of them CAN’T, because the laws aren’t the same as the ones which existed when families arrived in previous centuries. That’s my point here.

          1. Confused here. Not only were you responding to my comment, but my point in that comment is closely related to the point made in BooMan’s post. Hard to understand how you became the decider of what the point is.

          2. Enlighten me. tell me what other major country has a looser immigration policy than the USA.

            I wrote that, so that’s how I get to decide what i meant when I wrote that. Not you. Not Booman.  Yastreblyansky told me what I was asking to know. He enlightened me, as I requested.

            Your response only makes sense if you thought I was being sarcastic. I was not.

      2. In the US the foreign born share of the population is about 10%; in Switzerland 23.4 % and Australia 26.8%. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries all arguably have looser policies. (Switzerland is tightening up and a plurality of its immigrants are from Germany anyway.)

      3. Do we really want to compare our immigration policies to other countries?  We’ve never been the same:

        Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
        Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

      4. And? This is precisely why the nativists’ dream of rewriting the 14th Amendment is so revolting. It’s true that revoking “birthright citizenship” would not actually have the effect of reinstating the Dred Scott decision, but it would create a new permanent underclass in this country. Fortunately it’s never going to happen.

        1. The point being that even Leftist Germany has stricter rules than the USA. I get a little weary of the unending litany of American sins with the implication that other countries are better (sometimes it’s true).

          1. Fair enough. I’m not someone who’s always bashing the US, anyway. There are quite a lot of things that I think we’ve gotten right, and the 14th Amendment is one of them.

  2. “We know today that racial categories are arbitrary from a scientific point of view.”

    Oh, Boo, this is up for debate, dontcha know? Don’t quash scientific inquiry! Bell Curve, brother…lol.

  3. The historical overview here doesn’t even mention the extensive anti-Catholic bigotry of a century ago. Santorum doesn’t dare criticize that as a bad thing, either.

  4. This just in:

    Conservatives use the US Government and it’s people to get ahead and a decent life, turn out and pull up the ladder before attempting to dump boiling tar over the side.

    In other news, water still wet, sky still blue.

    Film at 11.

Comments are closed.