so the people who are to tend to volunteer are people from military families who increasingly have become kind of a military caste and people who live in towns and, cities where there is a lot of military presence is increasingly in the south. but because fewer and fewer americans, not only part of families who have a history of, but even encounter people who are serving in the military. that's of the reasons theoretically at least, that propensity to serve is dropping. america army making the all volunteer force is beth bailey book from 2009. her most recent an army of fire how the us army confronted its racial crisis in the vietnam era. we appreciate you spending a little time with us here on

good morning, everyone. my name, happy saturday. welcome. the immigration quota act. a century later, groups and long shadows. my name is magdalena marie nati and i'm a stay with adolphus college in minnesota. i'm currently the president of the immigration history society and i co-edited with erika lee, a special issue of the journal of history on the origins and of 1924, from which this panel has drawn before. i introduce our presenters today i would like to briefly describe what the 1924 immigration act was. those of you might not be familiar with it also being taped. so i think our audience will be really interested in that. the 1924 immigration act banned entry of most immigrants from because they were ineligible to naturalize it imposed. national origins quotas on immigrants the eastern sphere to reduce immigration, eastern and

southern europe and it several categories for exclusion and deportation. while policymakers under pressure from business interest in the southwest exempted immigrants from the western hemisphere from the quota system, they passed the labor appropriation two days later to create the u.s. border patrol to monitor the nation's in line with the labor demands of the country. this meant that while mexicans for example did fall under the quota system, the introduced administrative regulation to omit them, exclude them or deport them as our presenter presenters today will show the act was a culmination of a decade long efforts to create an immigration regime that admitted only desirable immigrants in fact, by the 1920s, immigration laws had become tools of social engineering. a nation that intersected with the dispossessed and coerced assimilation. native americans intersected with the segregation and

disenfranchisement. black americans, the invasive of welfare recipients and impoverished communities and imperial projects, home and abroad. the 1924 immigration act remains one of the most consequential immigration congress has ever passed, and how we think about immigration today. so, for example, the idea of quotas or early caps are completely accepted. while the 1924 arc act made both of those possible, it is now pleasure to introduce today's presenters, the order in which they will speak each of them will have about 10 minutes. i will be very strict about this to deliver their remarks. i will then open the floor for discussion. i look forward to a robust and engaging conversation about one of the most critical developments in century u.s. history. our first presenter is kevin kenny, who is glucksmann, professor of history at new york university. his books include making of the mogae, molly maguires get american irish a history

peaceable kingdom lost the pakistan boys and the destruction of william penn's holy experiment. diaspora. a very short introduction and. the problem of immigration in a slaveholding policing mobility. in the 19th century united states, for which he received two awards yesterday. professor kenney is, a distinguished lecturer of the organization of american historians, and he served as president of the immigration ethnic history society from 2021 to 2024. our next presenter will carl lindskoog, is always associate professor of history ireton valley community. he's the author of detain and punish haitian refugees and the rise of the world's largest immigration detention system is also written. sanctuary is justice, resilience and ingenuity. in the sanctuary movement. since 1986, a chapter in whose america us immigration policies 1980 aided by maria cristina and me our next presenter will be

yale. thank you. shaker is a he. she's a historian of law and policy who has worked at refugees international, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization in washington, dc since 2019. her work as senior advocate for the united states and for the americas and europe at i sorry i refugees has allowed her to build upon her academic specialties on the history of asylum in the united states and the relationship of immigration policy to foreign policy and refugees. yale has researched written about such topics as the us, guatemala cooperative agreement, haitian migration in the americas, the history of the use of parole authority in the united states and difficulty iraqi and afghan refugees have united with family members in europe and the united states. she received her phd in american from harvard university in 2016 and was a postdoctoral fellow at the institute for historical studies at the university of texas austin, 2017 2018.

her book, the history of asylum in the u.s. since the 19 century, will be in 2025. we can't wait. our last presenter is, seema sohi, who is associate professor of ethnic studies and a faculty affiliate in the department of history at the university of colorado, boulder. her book echoes of mutiny, race, surveillance and anti-colonialism in north america, examines the radical anti-colonial politics of south asian intellectuals. migrant workers based in north america during the early 20th century, as well as. the entire imperial efforts of us and british states to repress them. she has also published essays and articles in the journal of the american history formations emory asia journal of modern european history and the anthologies the sun never sets south asian migrants in an age of us power and asian-american literature in transition. she also she served as the chair of the board of directors of sada, the south asian digital

archive from 2017 to 2020. please join in welcoming all of them. thank you. good morning, everyone. thanks. being here at this hour on a saturday. this. this emerged, as you know, from special issue of the journal of american history on the origins and consequences of the restriction laws a century ago. thank you, maddalena marinari. and erika lee as the editors who us through that process. my brief was to look at the concepts personal statutory and origins, immigration restriction the 19th century. so i covered the earlier when

slavery and westward expansion were the dominant themes in american history just to get a sense of how we might trace the origins of national authority over immigration in the first place. i'm just going to share with you how my contribution helped us understand what became possible by the 1920s. attempt at the end on how it also helps us understand aspects of the immigration crisis in the united states today. but i hope we'll get to that in q&a. my main argument in this piece was the existence, abolition and legacies of slavery more than any other consideration shaped american immigration policy as it moved from the local to the state to the national level before the civil war. congress played almost no role in regulating the admission or expulsion of immigrants with the

exception of a naturalization policy and some passenger laws. and strangely, for a country that has attracted more immigrants from more places than any other country in the history of the world, the constant tution says nothing about immigration. we this, but it's still something we need to confront. the constitution says nothing about the admission, exclusion or expulsion of immigrants. it does empower congress to come with a uniform policy naturalization. pretty much the same policy we have in place today. a waiting period of probation periods. evidence of good character. an oath renouncing foreign allegiance. with, of course, those huge that to be eligible had to be a free white person. not until 1870 was the right to natural allies. extended to people of african origin or descent. not until the 1940s and 1950s

could asian immigrants be owned. this one provision in the constitution, the federal government was involved in regulating mobility in important ways through the fugitive slave laws, for example, through the removal of free african americans abroad, the so-called colonization movements, through the massive relocation of native americans, through homestead policies that favored white settlers, immigrants. but when it came to immigration in its familiar sense. towns, states, cities control, their own border and set their rules for community membership and used their police power to do to do that in the northeast, they used their power to exclude or remove foreign paupers. in the old northwest, they used

similar techniques to regulate the movement of free black into territories and states across the south, in eight states. if you were a free black sailor, a arriving slave, the port of charleston, either from england or the or from massachusetts it, was mandated that you would remain in jail for the duration of your stay, either in the county jail or on board ship. so what i'm arguing the article is the control over foreign immigration of the movement of african-american cousins remain tightly intertwined throughout the antebellum period. when the supreme court looked challenges to state laws, they tended to dance around the issue than confront it directly. because if the supreme court invalidated a state law controlling the arrival of irish in massachusetts for southerners were looking very carefully at that. they were looking at what the

court would do because if you place that kind of power up in national plans under the commerce power of the constitution, you're opening up the potential regulate the movement of free black people between the states the interstate slave trade potentially slavery itself. so there's really a constitutional that i don't think can be resolved before the civil war. civil is a turning point in american immigration history, beginning with cultural prohibition act. the act to encourage in 1864, by 1875, the court has no difficulty declaring unanimously that immigration is federal matter. it's in the hands of congress under the commerce. they could never do that. when slavery existed, that's the argument i'm making. the one thing i want to caution is, while it is true that civil

war abolition removes the political and constitutional obstacles to a national immigration, it did not make policy inevitable because if you perform a quick counterfactual and you imagine that slavery had been abolished a generation or two earlier. congress would not have stepped in and restricted immigration numerically. people didn't like the irish, so nobody was calling for them to be excluded numerically. there's no there's no call for numerical restriction of europeans until until later in the 19th century. so there has to be historical contention. see, that is the arrival of chinese immigrants in the same period. so it's through chinese exclusion that a national immigration policy emerges. the catalyst is the arrival of chinese laborers. the response in the page act 1875, the chinese exclusion act, the scott act of 1888.

there are precedents in american history for how chinese immigrants treated other americans in the antebellum south. had to carry papers had to present them on demand, could be deported, removed out of state, could be excluded were subject corporal punishment if they violated the law. so this precedent smelled in a strict legal sense but in a practical sense a third level the case you almost championed versus the united states 1889. the chinese exclusion case, the supreme court ruled that control over immigration was an inherent attribute of national sovereignty. as read, it is in effect an extra constitutional power. there's nothing in the constitution, you don't have to go to the text of the constitution to find that power. it is a fundamental attribute of an independent nation to control its borders. that may seem selfish, evident

to us today. well, it's not self-evident to the supreme today that. the the origins of that form of control lie in chinese exclusion. that's the point making. that power inherent in the sovereignty of nations will allocate to the so-called political of government. the legislative the executive with minimal interference by the court by the court system. that's we know as the planetary power doctrine, plenary power doctrine, as articulated with chinese, as the specific. what's the basis for trump versus hawaii? that that was the basis which the power was upheld. okay. to conclude i have 1 minutes. perfect. the chinese immigration folds in two separate category of law when teaching, we really need to

be clear that two pieces of legislation were passed in 1880 to a chinese exclusion that described. general immigration act, which in effect extend to the national level what had been done at the state level. and he wrote accurately in the room, and he wrote a book on this that. they have tax likely to become a public charge provision emerge out of the state level precedents and people begin to realize actually that the national government can do this more effectively. the argument in the northeast is if state laws are invalid, who's going to pay? the argument in the west is courts are going to overturn state level discriminatory measures against chinese. well, let's pressure congress to do a more thorough job. i want to conclude on the point that the claim to control immigration rests on a claim by the national government to sovereignty over national

territory in that territory, there were hundreds of autonomous semi-autonomous tribal nations with their own conception of sovereignty and we can trace how immigration law and native american law through plenary power unfold in tandem. it's no coincidence really then that the indians act and immigration restriction of 1924 coincide with a one week of each other. thank so much. morning, everyone. thank you, maddalena, for hosting facilitating and to my fellow panelists and also maddalena and erika for inviting me to participate in this journey american history

discussion. i was really honored to be included and i am still honored today. so perspective on the roots in, the long shadows of the immigration acts of 21 and 24, 1921, 24, and now 100 years after, 1924 is through the lens of the state's practice of detention and incarceration. i came this work through my research. haitian asylum seekers and the state's development of a detention system to exclude them and control them. and how laid the foundation for our modern immigration detention and broader incarceration. but for this discussion i had just sort of followed. i tried follow the thread back through the early 20th century and since my research focuses more on the later 20th century, i have relied on the amazing scholarship of a lot of other folks who sort of established that earlier history.

so what i do here is i ask, what is the function of incarceration today and how has it been used to historically eliminate unwanted people? and what does this history of incarceration and removal have to do with immigration? in 20 1924 and more recently, i also inquire into the relationship between this process and the long historical process of eliminating indigenous people from this land process settler colonialism. and also where does this meet up with the projects of american and white supremacy? and what i found is that throughout the 20th century and into the 21st immigration detention other forms of incarceration have been used to advance and white settler rule something that historians and historical actors sometimes called racist or racial imperial ism and.

in the essay, i try to demonstrate the ways that was and remains a key part of the longer genius elegy of a white settler colonial violence that has relied on campaigns of restriction, removal and elimination. and so that's the kind of big and i'm advancing. and now just in the remaining 8 minutes or so, i'm going to try to just quickly pull out some examples, the long 20th century and, i'm going to skip some stuff the middle for the interest of time. but i hope that in the discussion we can return to unpack some of it more. so my students and i explore all of, you know, the u.s. even before the u.s., the colonial process has long deployed incarceration to achieve the goal, eliminating indigenous people. nick estes calls this the reservation world and all kinds of state violence and settler colonial violence have been used

to advance the project of settler colonialism against indigenous people. and kevin mentioned this others will probably talk about it this is really the foundation upon which immigration detention in our system of incarceration. of course we also know that the other of the foundation is of violence and, incarceration, caging used to enslave and control enslaved people. the historical. i like how kevin mentioned that the historical continue to see that kind of shifted this long process towards immigration restriction established the exclusionary in immigration policies was of course the chinese exclusion act of 1882, which our modern period of immigration detention. and one thing that i learned through doing some of this reading and research and

preparing section is that that the violence of incarceration and settler colonialism at home always and increasingly throughout the 20th century had its corollary in violent violence abroad and imperial abroad. so thinking about as the 20th century unfolds, the relationship that domestic settler, colonial and white supremacist violence at home and the project imperial violence abroad, one place that we see this pretty early on and even before the 20th century is in the campaign subjugate and colonized the philippines and they're the same practice is and policies that were used to subjugate indigenous people were kind of brought abroad and used to try to have this counter revolutionary violence against the filipino. so we see that sort of violence

going abroad and then coming back home in brutal methods, strategies of counterinsurgency that are taking place abroad and at home but controlling the frontier was also always a difficult project because of resistance. the philippines by indigenous people, also by migrant that are fleeing sometimes imperial violence and crossing borders of that becomes difficult for the american state, which is really where in the 19 teens and twenties the project gatekeeping emerges forcefully. it's partly a response. white supremacist anxieties about the changing demographic in the. 19 teens. and that's what's informing the the immigration restriction act of 21 and 24. it's it's important to note that

united states is not the only anglo settler state that's doing this in the same period for the same reasons. so i observed in the essay how australia, for example, another anglo settler state, is doing something very similar exactly the same time do something. the immigration restriction act 1901. but it was also known as the white australia policy. and it's, you know, instructive, i think do a comparative assessed ment of what's going on in these same kinds of situations in terms of racial empire and controlling of boundaries domestically. we've already heard and we'll keep discussing how it's important to note that the indian citizenship act of 1924 is happening at the same time, and it's about controlling and regulating the lives of indigenous, for example, by making subject to the united states criminal justice system. it's an extension the policy of developing the carceral

apparatus for all kinds of marginal that need to be controlled and regulated at the same time. i'm going to jump in my last few minutes to think about how this really comes back in forceful ways in the 1970s, eighties and nineties. so getting closer to my own original research is the arrival of haitian seekers in the 1970s and 1980s and how that became the foundation for a new system of restriction policies were initially designed exclusively haitians, but also were soon applied to salvadoran asylum seekers coming in the same time and similarly excluded them. our modern system of immigration detention, which was also racial tool and an imperial tool, was deployed against haitians and then lots of other groups. it lays the foundation for our modern system.

getting back that theme of imperial violence domestically and abroad. when we look at the 1980s and what's going on in central in places like el salvador, guatemala and what's happened, what the government is doing to exclude salvadoran guatemalan asylum seekers who are fleeing that very state violence. we can, i think, really see clearly the relationship between that violence and the attempt to use incarceration detention but all other forms of violence to manage empire and control the unruly frontier that developed when you try to have expansive empire and and a policy like that. so the united states in the 1980s probably no wassup boarding guatemalan and salvadoran regimes that were carrying out huge forms of state violence against their people

and was an attempt to have a sort of counterrevolution force there and also to control the and limit the movement, those fleeing that violence here, which i think we see it as earlier established in the sort of violence against filipinos and the immigration restriction and regulation. in the earlier period, it seems a modern expression of that same kind of dynamic of mentioned quickly because it's in my and my current research that members of the sanctuary movement in the eighties understood very clearly that the effort to cage and restrict and exclude asylum seekers coming to american borders was just an extension of the counterrevolutionary violence abroad. and so they built a movement that sought asylum here for those people and also to seek to end the wars and to end the imperial abroad, because they understood it to be the same expression of state violence. i'm just going to conclude because i realize my time up

that by the i didn't get to talk about the 1990s, but i would like to because they're important confluences in 1994 that really mirror 1924 and we could talk about that some more. but i'll just conclude by saying that. by the 21st century and definitely by today we can see that racialized mass incarceration, including immigration detention, had really has really become a hallmark of america's racial empire. and it's current expression of the settler colonial like. okay, i i hey, thanks, maddalena and eric and all of you helping me keep thinking about the relationship of my historical to my current work today in immigration policy and asylum policy in particular. and so i argue in the, in the

piece i wrote for this special issue that legally asylum is an outgrowth of immigration restriction and immigration restriction. so the move to restrict admission of certain immigrants from the late 19th century after the federal power was established. as i mentioned through the early 20th century and and some of the restrictive laws had exceptions. for example for who had committed political crimes that they were exempted from the exclu john of convicts in federal or an exception to bar exception to the bar against illiterates in 1917. for those who had experienced religious persecution. now these exceptions were extremely narrow. but they were statutes. three and there was error in the actual exclusionary laws and. in the essay, i briefly discuss how statutory exception for religiously persecuted illiterates. as i mentioned made it into the

immigration law in 1917. it was not the first time in u.s. history that for particular groups of immigrants carved out formal legal legal exceptions for in immigration law after laws or passed the locus of contestation over the meaning of asylum shifts to how the exception is by the policy makers who give guidance to the interviewer. immigration officers who interview asylum seekers. those officers themselves, of course, to the claimants, the people who make persecution claims their interpreters who are interpreter for them and from their foreign language usually, their lawyers, their lawyers appeals to the immigration authorities and to the federal courts. so now we have all these different people like shaping what asylum? i also talk a little about consoles abroad because they ultimately prevent people who would be worthy of an exemption

from getting a chance to lodge a claim upon reaching u.s. soil. my article then discusses the handling unexpected persecution by armenian jewish survivors of violence and frequently gender based by the immigration act authorities in the early 1920s when they arrived in the united states, the policy guidance from the immigration service was beyond guard persecution and claims are fraudulent attempts evade immigration restriction. until 1980. if you came to a u.s. land port of entry to ask for asylum, you were told, go seek it at the u.s. consulate in mexico and canada and from the onset of what many has called the regime of quotas and papers, this idea that a quota on restriction and that you have to get a visa to come. in the 1920s which lasted or

still exists today but lasted least especially through the 1970s. most of the people making persecution claims, asylum claims by invoking later. exceptions in the 1952 immigration nationality act, dislocation like the act, the refugees escaping act, laws that were passed by congress for refugees after the second world war. they had either come to the u.s. irregularly through very porous borders. frankly or on temporary statuses like they came a sailor or a student or a businessman or a tourist. and they asked for asylum or they asked for relief from on persecution grounds. the 80 refugee act for the first time established a universal asylum standard. so you didn't claim asylum because are a political criminal for that exception. i mentioned a religiously persecuted or a defector from communism, but because according

to the standard that was adopted, you feared persecution if returned to your home country based on one of five grounds or race, nationality, political opinion, membership in a particular social group. it was supposed to be ideal, logically and geographically neutral, that standard. but in practice since the 1980s, it's been very difficult for, say, a central american men or a woman to asylum under that. supposedly universally applied. asylum definition and i just want to say here just like nobody who designed the exception for religiously persecuted illiterates expected survive hours of gender based violence to bring claims under it. neither did the writers of the 1980 refugee act expect asylum to come, mostly from people crossing the u.s. border from mexico. they just were not expecting that reality. now, we as a scholarly and me in essay about how the biases about

race and gender and nationality and who is worthy for admission can tend to infuse asylum adjudication in today. but formal laws can be used by asylum too. it is amazing that any u.s. law ever adopted an international u.n. lost and offered for refugees like the refugee act did. this is anomaly in u.s. law period to have u.n. standard just incorporate it into u.s. law. now, of course the u.n. international law standard problematic. it was created in the 1950s in response to world war two. but we live in a world of formal laws and immigration exclusion. what we seen in the last four years is a massive effort by immigrants voting with their feet to use the exception informal law to come to the united states and, seek asylum. and despite evolving efforts to restrict this exception by

presidential ministrations, trump and biden alike, people are still coming and the law still stands. that people have a right to seek asylum no matter how they enter the country. and no matter how many people do unkept, it is astounding. just think about this for a minute. it is astounding giving the plenary power that was just described. the biden administration has tried numerous ways to limit but ultimately had to turn to congress and try and to change law and put a cap or a quota on the number of people who can seek asylum. it didn't work. just this past winter, to all the doomsayers that say asylum is dead, which i've heard many people say in the past couple of years, i have to tell you, the numbers say otherwise. we've got a backlog of new liens of applications in the courts and before the asylum office in the united states.

lots of people are waiting limbo. not great to wait in limbo, really. not but they are here in the meantime, this kind of access to asylum is also a product of foreign relations. removal of asylum claimants revolve around agreements with other government on the ability to return. i do think that there is a comparison to be drawn to deportation of some of the stateless armenian and -- that i write about. the u.s. returned, them to france and poland were countries they transited through right before they got to the united states. this is similar to the way that venezuela balance today. our return to mexico rather than venezuela, because don't return that many people to venezuela, because those will won't let us, frankly, won't accept the flights in the us. at different times as different about whether or not they should return people to venezuela. so the venezuelans end up in limbo here right subject to enforcement.

and if they are returned to mexico, which many, many venezuelans are returned to mexico today, they are likely they're subject to enforcement in mexico. a lot of enforcement and likely to try to come to the u.s. again and the work advocacy in the 1920s and today has run on to and this is how i conclude. there's a radical i would say minor project so far which has been to challenge the discriminatory underpinnings of the law and overturn racist precedents. is also to challenge the idea of restriction at all. right. like we shouldn't have restrictions. immigration and i think a lot of us here maybe in the academy would agree with that idea. but in practice, it's very, very hard. i mean, we live in a world of laws and restrictions and that's a very idealistic but hard to achieve. another has been to find liberal in an otherwise restrictive apparatus and expand their use

and their applications to more groups of people or people, certain countries, people like haitians or like guatemalans who have been denied access to not because the law actually technically didn't allow them to, but because of how the law has been applied to them and discretion of officers basically denying them. one can also try to reform the bureaucracy from within, recognizing that asylum bureaucrats and immigration are the ones with a lot of power over the meaning of asylum. and we can encourage hiring of better people for those jobs or better train people for those jobs or better standards and etc. because asylum seekers are still and there are so many of them here waiting adjudication by those people, by those bureaucrats and those judges. or we can seek legislative change that would give so many people waiting in limbo a path to permanent residency. another route that has taken in

the past for cubans. let's say they just very quickly and can certainly be applied more broadly to more. i began i just want to echo my panelist links to madeleine and to erika for putting together this special issue and for inviting me to be part of it. my essay on the 1917 immigration act, the precursor, the 1924 one of the precursors to the 1924 immigration act when it was passed by congress in february of 1917. the act constituted the most sweeping immigration law in u.s. history. it included an extensive list of people that it now deemed ineligible for entry,

implemented a literacy requirement that for immigrants over the age of 16 and the to the to that i focus on particularly in essay are the of all peoples living within what was referred to as the barred zone. a constructed geographic region that included almost of asia except japan and philippines. and the second provision, the act expanded the use of deportation to suppress what were deemed dangerous or subversive political actors and movements. by extending the statute of limitations for deportation from 3 to 5 years. while it may seem if these latter two provisions of the 1917 immigration act, one that barred migrants from almost all of asia and the other crack down on those deemed subversive political radicals had little to

do with one another. i argue that they were, in fact, mutually concerned and deeply intertwined. the barred zone covered those geographical areas from which immigration was seen as racially, economically and politically threatening u.s. security. as such, the 1917 act both reflect it and reproduced public perceptions of the inseparable ability of the foreign agitator and the undesirable alien, and demonstrates how the implementation of anti radical policy was and restrictive immigrate ation laws occurred. hand in hand. so i'm basically, you know, thinking through how immigration restrictive policy also must be understood as politically repressive policy, right? southern and europeans deemed

potential anarchists and certainly not white, according to the racial logic of the time, have been central to historical examinations. of the 1917 and 1924 immigration acts. but i want to emphasize the importance of asian restriction in these laws. when the 1917 immigration act was passed, chinese and japanese laborers were already barred from entry through the 1882 exclusion act and the 1907 gentlemen's agreement. so proponents of the 1917 immigration act were largely south asians whose exclusion i argue must be understood as a consequence of their politic activism, both domestically and globally. dominant narratives about asian exclusion have been that asians were incapable of assimilation

inherently un-american, and an economic to white workers. but as i argue, restrictive immigration policies targeting asians were a consequence of the potential threat of asian revolt against imperialism and white supremacy. in other words, 1917 law was not only about shoring up the racialized boundaries of american citizenship, but also about containing the rise of asian freedom struggles against the bonds of racial and colonial subjugation and strength, thinning a regime of exclusion deemed essential to thectif nate supremacy and empire. so my own research focuses on asian migrants and the movement

from, the pacific coast of north america that they launched in the early decades, the 20th century. this was a movement that sought to both overthrow british colonial rule in india and to contest racial exclusion and violence in the united states and canada. south asians were racialised as a dangerous and subversive race. often referred to by u.s. officials as a hindu menace. in a 1914 congressional hearing convened to discuss the exclusion of south asians committee chairman john burnett of alabama insisted that a great many the south asians seeking entry the united states were, quote anarchists. the principle of the overthrow of government and quote representative john ricker of california, a vocal for south asian exclusion, insisted that

south asians were making the country, quote a hotbed of revolution and quote, by using it as a base to organize radical political movements, both domestically and abroad, prompting a number of congressional representatives to insist that asians were dangerous, agitate who must be excluded. the racialization south asians as a threat to. national and imperial security fueled the passage of the 1917 immigration act and demonized raids. how restrictive immigration were tools of political repression, historiography of exclusion and anti radical ism from the late 19th century to the immigration act of 1924 are often treated as separate, unconnected strands of exclusion. historians of immigration

restriction not considered the mutually constitutive nature of anti-asian racism and of anti radicalism, or how restrictive immigration and laws that targeted asian is, and those that targeted political radicals were simultaneous produced. the immigration act of 1971 then was not simply another marker in the long history of exclusion. it was a key moment of confluence in which anti-asian and anti radical currents that had been circulating in american public discourse and congressional debates for decades came together in one immigration law, the 1917 act was passed at time when the racial, political and economic order of the nation, the world seemed more precarious than ever, at least in the eyes of exclusion ists.

as by the rise of the industrial workers of the world the migration of asians to white settler colonies across the globe the great migration of black americans out of the american south, and the rise of bolshevism, all constituting nothing short an existential threat to the boundaries of u.s. citizenship and to global white supremacy. the 1917 act did not restrict the entry of immigrants as addressed quickly as its proponents had wished, an exclusion continue to demand a more reaching and permanent fix. the literacy test, they argued, did little to stem immigration, and by the end of 1920, immigration had nearly returned to pre-war levels. also of great concern was the politicization and mobilization of colonized and racially subjugate peoples in the aftermath of world war one.

so exclusion is continued to demand a more comprehensive immigration law that would definitively the door to all asian migrants, particularly those from japan who had not been in the barred zone provision. the 1917 immigration act. they would ultimately attain this with an important clause in the immigration act of 1924 that stated that anyone ineligible for was now barred from entry. asians had been denied naturalized citizenship since they began entering the country under the naturalization law that kevin mentioned of 1790, which stated that only free white persons become naturalized u.s. citizens. ultimately, the immigration act of 1924 extended. what exclusion is had been demanding for decades. the exclusion of all asian migrants for decades to come.

thank you. you can see why it was such a pleasure to with me. i'd like to open it to the floor if zoomlion, please introduce yourself. you ask your question or step leadership. so thank you very much for all of these papers and a little background little bit about the impact of world war one. i was wondering, anyone saw a little bit more about war generally and what that influence may have been this policy. i was really intrigued by our discussion about imagery. becoming a security issue. so i don't know if you saw more ties between the ones with what out of that and what connection that had to immigration. okay. since everyone's looking at me, i guess.

i think that i think world war one was a i can't even, you know, sort of obviously, like how critical i it was to the formulation of more restrictive immigration policy in this moment. and from my perspective and kind of research that i do. part of the the real was an understanding amongst those advocating for exclusion of how much the first world war had politicized colonized and racially subjugate hated peoples the world over. right and and there was an awareness of the incredible disillusionment that many of those who fought on behalf of empires and nations felt in the aftermath of the war that certainly further fueled the right if not even generate their own anti-colonial mobilization. and so i think that it's really important to emphasize the the rhetoric of national security

and how effectively it was deployed and continues to be deployed to justify the restriction of of all kinds of people. and i think we really see that. i mean, i know you know, i mean, headlines, book menace to empire talks the centrality of national policy and discourse, even going to the u.s. philippine war. but i certainly saw i think that the the kind of power of that rhetoric and policy in the world war one period that both allowed for increasingly restrictive immigration laws and increasingly politically repressive policies, which i'll just make a brief plea for ancient history. the 19th century, there's a huge war. we wouldn't have a national policy without the civil war and reconstruction. it's that it is a turning point in immigration history, as in everything else. and the question of what

intrigues me is, i mean, the 14th amendment, the emergence from a war to end slavery and it becomes integrating force for immigrants under children in american history the the the civil war and reconstruction eliminate the worst abuses of state control over mobility, foreign born people and black bodies. they all the war and reconstruction also. an expanded federal state that is capable of restricting immigration in a way that the states couldn't have dreamed of. on the question of national security, the language emerges chinese exclusion, and it's of the articulation of national sovereignty that allows the united states to enter the international stage. it's framed as a national matter in a certain sense, although the

federal government doesn't have police power formally. i see what's happening there as an extension of the police writ large to the nation. the very same legal theorists, theorists of international law that are being throughout the antebellum periods to justify the sovereignty of south carolina are then being invoked. same people to to justify national sovereignty. yeah, just one thing is that i mean, i think. you know, wars create refugees and there was, i think, you know, there had been there was this conflation of extremist like the anti radicalism and anti bolshevism. right. and, and immigrants and demand that was specific to world one. and what happened with the bolshevik revolution. but i think terms of europeans,

you know, there's this longer tradition of like written numerically restricting asians from by or capping them, making it unable. but for europeans i think the caps, the numerical restriction were given a lot more heft and argumentative strength by the nativists in the united states who wanted to impose restrictions because of this, like you'd see in the congressional debates, like we don't want all these european refugees coming like they're too many european or they're poor people displaced, you know, so that anti-asian of the concern about refugees coming definitely gave added impetus for. the restriction the numerical caps that were put in place and then continued and then, you know, the the anti bolshevism, i think pretty infused refugee policy know anti-communism like for basically much the rest of the 20th century. so for that, of course, very, very informative. and just very briefly, i'm sorry. go ahead. you go first. and so while kevin wants to

bring the 19th century back in, i'll bring the late 20th century and and so when sima is talking about drawing sort of emphasizing anti radicalism as a major motive in, chinese erm asian exclusion, i just thought about all the parallels with what's going on in central america in the 1980s really. and that's a more irregular not sort of such form of warfare, but it's u.s. backed warfare and imperial violence and you know, while there's racism and nativism that leads to the decision to exclude salvadoran asylum of guatemalan asylum seekers, it's mainly the anxieties and concerns about threats to american empire that's informing that because they realized that would that unrestricted migration challenges u.s. policy central america. i was going to say the first time the quotas the idea of quotas were was introduced was

in 1911 with the dillingham commission. but people were thought that, as extreme because there was still reluctance to restrict numerically immigrants. and i think removing one makes it acceptable it's like, yes, we can shift from quantitative to qualitative. quantitative. thank you. adequately. go ahead. hi senator. touches on the university graduate student my question is kind of specifically for professor carney, but i'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts. you know, you talk about this notion of the constitutional impasse that the court in the 19th century is quite reluctant, of course, to address. immigration laws are kind of any any kind of strict regulations around that. and i'm just wondering if you could reflect a little bit and i do want to hear more with the 19th century because because the court is very willing to address power over tribal nations. you know, when you think of the

marshall trilogies kind of famously write early 1830s, i mean, it is really, really to address as you said by mobility of enslaved people. i mean i'm just wondering as we about the kind of formation of plenary power doctrine that is formed through foreign indian law and control over asian migrants in the of the 19th century. how you of see that throughout the 19th story you don't want to hear because this is open for great. oh this that so you you have westerly georgia in 1831 which appears to acknowledge some sovereignty so guardianship or tutelage of ward chap under the authority of the federal government acknowledged taking native sovereignty. in that context of the states can't intrude on native

sovereignty. it's a decision without enforcing mechanism as we know it doesn't. the trail of tears. you have 15 years later and. rogers the tony court has a completely different take, which denies the possibility sovereignty altogether and reduces native tribes and nations to what we might call minority status. that the only rights they have are those that the federal government chooses bestow upon them. that's a negation of sovereignty. those two principles run an uneasy tension through the 19th century. i think we could say by end of the 19th century that the three areas that call identified, which is native american policy immigration policy policy and the overseas territories, those are the three areas in which

strictly they are speaking, not a plenary power, because the plenary power, as is allocated, the plenary power based on a claim to authority inherent in sovereignty that needs no justification. it's a political matter and it becomes a geopolitical. the courts should back away from that. so i see that form of if you like, naked power being asserted of a fundamental attribute of, national sovereignty as the united states joins the international stage in precisely the three areas, karl, that that you mentioned, i hope that's the beginning of an answer. with anyone else. and the question. i am from the past from wellesley college and i have a question for you.

i'll i'm curious how you trans elite your historical research to influence policymakers and to what extent understand the history of immigration restriction and influences modern day policy. is it moral arguments that the history illuminates or something else? it's a great question. i think about every day like an existential question for me and it's nice to see erin. erin and i were in graduate school together. so i, i, i typically i mean, what i have found is i of gestured at this at the end of my is that, you know, pointing out how racist immigration law is only gets you so far with people in charge for obvious

reasons and we i think it's the you know it needs to be part of fight you know the whole effort over you know, to overturn 1325 1326, which is the law is that criminalize unauthorized entry is based on this idea that those laws are fundamentally unconstitutional because they're racist and discriminatory and i think that is an and noble and true fight based on the history of immigration and. we all know it's going to be an uphill battle. one of the things i try to do to day is to find out, use my knowledge of immigration and law and recognizing that mostly it's restrictive and a lot of in there is going to be really hard but to find wedges in the law that are progressive and just expand them to more people and try use that as a way of making arguments, it's easier to a politician that, hey, here's good thing you should use more

than here's a bad thing. you should just do novel laws, you know what i mean? like, it's so and i know not. maybe it's not a satisfying for people and so it doesn't knock everything all down. what it's saying is, let's try to build things up and make things better. it's great, you know, it's like try to do and i think there are progressive of congress and people in the administration and i don't think this is as easy. certain administrations, right? you're not. no matter what you find, it's not going to be a good enough precedent. sometimes you just have to be adversarial and fight back in the courts. there are you know, you look for opportunities, i think, and use, you know, your knowledge of immigration law and know my work on my parole, for example which has basically been about this parole power exists. it's extremely problematic in many ways because it's completely discretionary by the executive and it can be used and abused and used indiscriminate tary ways actually about why you just use it in a nondiscriminatory way for like a lot of people, right?

like it's a power that exists. so that's the kind of opportunities. i'm constantly looking for. and it's a pragmatic approach, right? it's because i think you do have to be pragmatic with the current working within a political system as it exists. that's those are kinds of things i think about. but i'm constantly thinking about like how i can still be true to history while making change really good. it's because you want to don't want to sugarcoat anything in the process. but i feel i still think it's it because it's very hard to make change. otherwise, if i can say so, it's probably not like even my research. this is such this divide activists. i look at specifically in the 1950s and at this of frustration someone just says, look, half a loaf is better than no loaf at

all, especially if you are on the ground. right. it just a little bit of progress. yeah. and but they were criticized compromising too much. i mean, and this is, you know with ice detention everybody knows the conditions are awful exist at all. why should people be detained all but a lot of effort is work to improving conditions of detention in the immigration rights movement knowing that like we they exist right now and people are stuck in their thousands of people are in those detention centers and what do we for them in the meantime, while they still exist, the biden administration and the recent congress and the appropriations bill just created 10,000 more beds. so are not going to be 42,000. immigration beds. it's more than existed and you know, earlier it had been 35,000. now you mean like 40. so it's a lot of beds for people are in them right now. and so what do we do for the people who are stuck in immigration detention now. and despite the fact that, you know, ideally we don't have it

at all. right. so those are the models and these are the two tracks, what you do. but i just wanted to comment on yale's comment and link it to something you said in your talk portion i'm i'm happy we have people like yale like trying to think creatively and look for those wedges and take a pragmatic approach and same approach i think led to a optimistic that you offered in your talk, which is thinking about like asylum, right. and i like that you said, you know, despite the embattled asylum system and all the debate, you know, asylum's not dead in the evidence that you look at all these asylum seekers, you know, and like i just think taking a historical approach, probably i talk with my students about like how will historians view this period, do that all the time. but i mean, like in the future, we'll probably be like, look all these people made it here and they're here and but right in the moment, we have we think about the backlog, asylum cases

and all the politics, the troubled politics surrounding it. so seems like goes like taking that same perspective to the law and activism and historical perspective. i think that's great. yeah. yeah. hey, thank you all so much. i'm jenna. heather. i'm a grad student at, uc santa barbara. my question is faceme a really so in oc sorry person thinking and talking at the same time bad idea. so in the aftermath of the us versus dean decision when labor went through and naturalized every south asian who'd gotten citizenship in a lot the language the court documents, the listed language is that it's because now we know the south asians are not white under section 2169 of the 1790 act and also the 1917 immigration act

and reviewer two helpfully pointed out to me that's not a citizenship law. i know. so i guess my question for you is in your work on what can kind of like anachronistically be called national security, i guess how how can we think about citizenship naturalization as part of the overall national security regime that you see happening? well, i like that some have made an that the thind case in particular was also was not just a citizenship case but was also an active case about political repression. because then you know had some connections to the court. their movements which you probably know and and as you pointed out, 65 south asians were denied after the thin case of 1924. and so i don't know. i mean, haven't really thought about sort of your question is

what is the connection between naturalization and citizenship and political repression? is that what you said? yeah. i mean, there's been at least that in the case of south asians at that moment, there's been actually this is i mean, i did find evidence of in the historical record that, u.s. officials, british officials were very concerned that south asians were coming to the united states and intentionally seeking citizenship and then using that as a tool through which to to overthrow the british empire. and that was not wrong. i mean, some of them were right. and some of the intellectuals, you know, said that some of this immigration is so small, it's 10,000 people we're talking the vast majority are migrant laborers, but some of them were intellectuals, anti-colonial radicals, who came and sought asylum. right. who said, we are refugees seeking asylum from from british

and some of the leaders track not the most prominent that we know of. we're very explicit that we are seeking citizenship so that we can safely organize against british imperialism from the u.s. and so i do think and maybe this is what your work is about, which would be fantastic. but i do think that we there is evidence that that i think could be examined much more. that part of the efforts to restrict citizenship and do naturalized were linked this larger repression of what's called the gather movement at that at the time and i don't think that denying citizenship i mean it's always about much more right. there's there's always broader reasons. and i think repression in this case certainly is one of them. so maybe we could talk after about. yeah, just thank you. i think gender. yeah. and laura the dupatta for a the

kind of going off an earlier question about like what history can help us is there models in our immigration law history that can actually be productive models for us thinking ahead in our current day situation which has its own complexity of ones that treat humanely, that strength in communities within the united states that don't create backlash. i'm just, you know, thinking about it. it's not the greatest history. but are there models of anything that in our history. yeah i, i believe there are. i think part of what i learned from doing this article was to distinguish between two meanings of immigration law. so there's control of national borders. and we've discussed how that became an attribute of national sovereignty. and it's the supreme court

that's wondering today if a state can make policy. but you know since the 1870s that's kind of been agreed upon. but there is a second meaning of immigration law, which is after foreigners like me arrive in the country what is done at a subnational level to integrate, to help them, to assess them or to monitor to detect, punish and deter them and of unusual in my work, because i'm an 18th and 19th century historian, i don't normally out an epilog a reflection the present right. but in this case it emerged organically from the work i was doing for the special issue because that immigration, federalism is the subject of my essay is alive and well today. and this is a by vacation. so it depends on really where in the country live, what sort of

local state county subhash level measures being taken. i, i see potential and merit in local sovereignty because that's what i think this on the trump administration i, i see merit and i cloud federal power on certain issues right now. can we not be skeptical of what federal power will produce? so think of personal liberty laws and the antebellum period a state cannot violate federal law, but the federal government order local officials to implement connect that to themes of sanctuary. and so it's a thin reed on which to base of progressive politics. given what we know states rights. but it's not something one can write off so on a practical

level on the ground there is a conception of local sovereignty might rest on an affirmative to the welfare. all residents regardless origin or background. and that is playing in parts of the country today as well. yeah, i would, i would agree with that and i think, you know, there's different to look at and i think, you know, looking at just federal kind of like what i discussed before, think we're reception related policy once people are in the big issue is like can you get in once you're what what policy is there and i think it's driven by both local and federal policy once you're in the country and mean what the u.s. did for cubans the 1960s is astounding you basically in miami in 1962 there were 2000 cubans arriving a week week and

government gave them education nation, you know benefits of every kind that you can imagine. housing benefit, you know. we had a robust social welfare. i mean, so there was and there were a lot of people coming this is came and it was like new york every day today like when you hear like mayor adams saying like, oh my god, a thousand people are arriving in new york every day. well that's what was happening. that's happened before, like in certain parts and certain times. and we somehow managed to deal with even more generously. and so i do think the way of like re shifting attention to that and one of the things i'm working on now is actually like there was in 1989, there was a i, for example, there was a large influx of nicaraguan asylum seekers in south texas. and they went and they made a beeline for florida to get asylum in miami because where most of the nicaraguan were at the time and in response bipartisan the bipartisan

congressional delegation in florida requested that the federal government make create a fund, an immigration emergency fund to help manage all of these people who are coming. and lo and behold, it became of the immigration act of 1990. and it's a fund that of exists but it hasn't been used for years years. and one of the things i'm working on now is like, okay, use this fund that was created a different to help new york manage all these asylum seekers that now coming i mean so there are these sort of moments when people acknowledge that we need to do better by the people who have in even at the federal level like federal support for newcomers who arrived and like let's again it's a wedge idea but like let's expand that and make it bigger rather than pushing back and saying that we can't handle all these people right? like that's sort of the like let's figure out how to handle these people. let's just figure it out. we've done in the past. just figure it out. but that's at the federal scale. and i think, you know, the sanctuary stuff. and i hope carl will talk about this. i mean, i think at a local scale have been a lot of efforts just to protect people and open homes. i see in dc where i'm based when

the busses arriving with people come at the border, like from texas, the governor abbott was busing all these people from on from south texas to washington dc, just basically dumping them at the white president's house to a point and the entire sanctuary idea and the movement basically went to the busses, took people because they were on the street, they were literally on the street in dc, went to pick them up, open their homes, gave shelter, a figure to start a respite. the different churches in dc tried to figure what to do with these folks, many of whom did not actually sponsors or relatives in the dc. so it became like, okay, these people were released, the department of homeland security. so they had like to stay in the united states. they weren't going to be deported right away, but they had literally no place to go right. they had no power. and so that's where, you know, you see kind of movement of people just really opening their homes and you need that.

otherwise it kind of this sort of chaos narrative about asylum you see so prominent for the way states were continuing, if those sanctuary dmv people did not go pick up those people, they would still be on streets in front of the vice president's house and can imagine what president biden would have decided to do, like close the border again. whatever you so or try. so i think it it does take you know it takes communities to really open up. they have to thought you your question was about the kind of precedent law like when what might be used for progressive or so my first example or thought is not law exactly but it compelling the federal government to do something more humane and progressive when it comes to asylum seekers and stuff, that's what happens in early 1990s with legal american baptist church for stance work. and basically the lesson what happened is activists and

advocates forced the federal government stop short of deporting salvadoran guatemalan asylum seekers, which it had been doing throughout the 1980s, and then to give them their asylum hearings and certain protections they want to do that they'd been resisting for a time, but they were forced to do that. and the lesson is it was a combination of activism, anti-war and anti-imperial, activist, international campaigns and struggle that forced them to do that. so that's an important lesson. it didn't result in new immigration, but it did. it was it forcing the government to change its policies. my other thought, going back to the 19th century, it's not immigration law, but just thinking about the reconstruction era, the constitutional amendments, you know the 14th and 15th amendments. you know that the result of political struggle in a lot of, you know, political led to that moment, too. but, you know, the 14th amendment and things you know what it leads then to one key mark and some of those cases

that's model for how to make really radical and progressive change in terms of opening the doors to, including more people rather than going the other way, which we so often are crazy when we're talking about sort of the one other settlement that's really political legal case that's really important. it still has a lot of legs. today is the flores settlement agreement, which is about the treatment, unaccompanied kids and like you, basically a lawsuit that was on behalf of a mexican girl in 1980 or salvador. and i think in ninth in 1980. salvadoran sorry girl, 1980s, basically has created protections around detention of kids. and like just last week basically what was what's happening is that a lot of people are arriving in like nowheresville in california in tacoma, right near the border of arizona. and they're the border patrol's making them like basically wait in these open air detention sites for weeks without, support without food and water. it's awful. and through flores is a court

ruled that you can't keep children there that's know you can't keep there so now it's becoming the whole immigration was like well okay we can't keep children here you really can't keep anybody there right. you use it as a wedge. it's not for kids. flores has always been used and to better to like, to better or for worse has tried to be used to expand the rights of courts, especially for children, because it is special to their families. right. so like more people, sorry. very, very good. briefly. i also wanted to mention the 14th amendment, the federal level. it defines citizenship. we know it, but it extends protections and rights persons not just not just citizens. i think we only have to look at why the 14th amendment is under attack and who's attacking it to realize that. it's a good thing. and eric foner described, the 14th amendment as american exceptionalism of the good kind

right. i would just say that when think you know i know when we talk about restricting immigration it's just so kind of all encompassing the bleak but it's so important to remember that migrants have been fighting restrictive immigration policies all along. and so many of those fights, those struggles are i very for me anyway when i was recruited into this incredibly empowering to learn and and what they were saying so i'll take here's one example when south asians started coming here before they were excluded by the 1917 immigration act. immigration inspectors who have a lot of power, as you pointed out, started using the public charge clause to exclude percent of them. right because they're like, we don't know when the law is going to be. so we're taking this into our own hands and what south asians, then it's hard is doing was going to the philippines and getting landed there and then

coming to seattle and francisco. and it was so satisfying to hear what they were saying. you know, they were saying, well, we just came from one part of the united states to another. and immigration inspectors start completely going ballistic because they said they're right right. and so these moments in which migrants are confronting the state i think are worth remembering and it goes far beyond integration and inclusion it's about critiquing state power. and in case empire right. so there's a way in which i think the narrative so often, you know, we sort of celebrate the 1965 immigration act and, then the 1924 immigration, i like the big problem, but 1965 immigration, i've had its own problems as well. but it it's it's like this idea like, well, then everything was fine 1965 and like, oh, good on us because we fix the problems

of the 1924 immigration act right. and so i think that when we look at these moments of resistance to power and restrictive immigration policy, to me that is hopeful because it continues to provide us the tools to interrogate the state, not as benevolent, but always forged through exclusion, restriction and racial violence. and how these migrants have constantly contested that. that logic, you. and the other question. if there's a law that we're to ask can't imagine the. 1990s oh thank you of. 1994 was in in my estimate. in and i'm not the only one who's observed this very similar

1924 in that you see different threads coming together from the perspective of sort of domestic control of marginalized racialized groups and borders. so 1994, of course, was the year that the north american free trade went into effect. and so disrupted mexican economy in especially rural the agricultural sector. it's also the time when operation and some of these new extremely violent efforts to restrict migration access into place. and there's no it's no coincidence, of course, that, you know, policies that disrupt and displace people are also met with exclusion. that's part of what's going on and the same thing that's going on in 1924 and of the crime act

of 1994 is put into place at the same time. so sort of criminalization of migrants or a new new step in the criminalized of migration and new tools to cage and criminalize other groups domestically here coming together in 1994 and very similar troubling ways as they were in 1924. it. i think we only have time for one more question. the ones that. laura, you your hand up very well i will have more of a comment. okay. think it's a question. first of all, thank you so for an amazing panel, i look to the issue and i was really struck by the comments around migrants not only resisting, but also using the laws in different ways. right ways that the state hadn't intended. and then the other theme i was really noticing in all of your comments was around the the

fear, both thinking, you know, migrants who have radical perspectives maybe and that's fearful or scary for the state but also just sheer numbers. and i wonder if there's something to be said around i don't know if it's labor and organize housing or mass migration and radical politics, but it just seems to me that there's maybe a thread and maybe a persistent disconnect in terms of how the state is thinking about migrants and who is scary, who needs to be excluded. i was trying to that a question, but it's really just a comment that. thank you so much. another question. can i just say something really quick? so that's kind of something that came up those of you that you know, it's about the, you know, hopefulness of resistance. and i'm thinking, you know, like from a certain perspective, workers can always expect to be exploited and, you know, repressed if they're organizing in a capitalist and, you know, the labor movement exists for that purpose.

and if we thought more about migrants always being expecting to be restricted and excluded as, just a matter of organizing it, it's about numbers, it's about solidarity. you know that seems like those things come together, i think maybe gives us strategies for overcoming instead of appealing to the state and expecting benevolence, but just, you know, understanding as of the system, just like labor has to fight for its rights always is part the system. and then how do we approach did anyone else wanted to say i guess just one i mean i think on the numbers question you know i mean way i think about what states want to do on immigration is they just want to control it. they want manage it sometimes they want to completely exclude certain of people a right now perspective five they want to manage it in a sort of way that is equal to all right and.

i think the trick i have is out, you know how tools that try to manage large end up actually be picking out certain groups of people exclude and certain groups of people just kind of let in and that's the tool of management. so it kind of converges that like actually the qualitative. so basically we'll use qualitative, you know, to basically say, okay, we're going to try to manage these enormous numbers by like pumping this group out and saying, hey, we're not going to have to manage those, right? so it's just sort of i see them sort of working in tandem in ways that in sort of similar ways way you were describing. yeah, yeah sorry, i even make this comment earlier, but i think we also kind of need to shift our thinking in terms of this was inevitable. like the very first version of the 1965 bill actually said we should this numbers every year

including the numbers for refugees because we want to be able to adjust to world crises economic interest and it didn't go anywhere but i think it's a really good example of there are other ways even within the current system that we have of about this right and kind of addressing a lot of the questions that came out today. thank you, everyone was