AHC: Delay Chinese Exclusion in the US for as long as possible

WolfBear

Well-known member
Here's an interesting AHC: Delay the Chinese Exclusion Act in the US for as long as possible. For instance, Canada had a head tax on Chinese immigrants (but not on any other immigrants--how convenient!) but didn't pass a similar Chinese Exclusion Act until 1923. FWIW, I was thinking of having James A. Garfield survive, experience an epiphany in regards to this question, and narrowly win reelection in 1884, but I fear that this will only delay Chinese Exclusion by several years since Garfield's successor--specifically whoever wins in 1888, either his Secretary of State James G. Blaine or some Democrat--is likely to support Chinese Exclusion, so we might see a Chinese Exclusion Act of 1890 instead of a Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Is there any realistic way to avoid this outcome? Any thoughts on this?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If immigration remains a state issue rather than a federal issue (it's unclear that the US federal government was actually supposed to have the power to regulate immigration from an originalist perspective), then it's possible that Chinese immigration to the US could last a bit longer relative to real life. The Western states will restrict it, of course, but Chinese immigrants could theoretically take the long way around to the East coast and then enter the US from there. They could also immigrate to Canada (which allowed Chinese immigration until 1923, albeit with a head tax on each immigrant after 1885, I think) and then immigrate to the US from there. It's possible that eventually the eastern US will also support restricting Chinese immigration, but it might take longer, perhaps even significantly longer.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
If immigration remains a state issue rather than a federal issue (it's unclear that the US federal government was actually supposed to have the power to regulate immigration from an originalist perspective), then it's possible that Chinese immigration to the US could last a bit longer relative to real life.

Isn't there something about naturalization in the Constitution?

And how could the states regulate immigration in place of the federal government? Is there legal precedent for having to naturalize to citizenship when moving from state to state? Aren't all states assumed to reciprocally recognize the citizenship of citizens of other states?

Anyway - to delay Chinese Exclusion Acts, I suppose the easiest move is to have the eastern crisis of 1878 and the Russo-Ottoman War break out into general European war involving most European powers including Britain into an early WWI analogue lasting at least as long as WWI or WWII.

Putting the expanding USA on an immigrant labor starvation diet, because of British Empire and European conscription and shipping shortages, causes, causes western capital interests to overpower labor interests in wanting to keep Chinese labor flowing in exploiting the west's mines, even though they also try importing Mexican and southern black labor. The starvation of northern and midwestern industry jumpstarts the southern black great migration north. This in turn lines up southern Bourbon Democrats behind the option of bringing in Chinese hires as migrant plantation hands in parts of the south.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Isn't there something about naturalization in the Constitution?

Yes, the argument of people such as Ilya Somin is that the US Constitution grants the US federal government power over naturalization but not over immigration itself.

And how could the states regulate immigration in place of the federal government? Is there legal precedent for having to naturalize to citizenship when moving from state to state? Aren't all states assumed to reciprocally recognize the citizenship of citizens of other states?

Yeah, that's what I'm curious about as well. Once you're in the country, wouldn't you be free to move to other US states? I think that in the past, having US states regulate immigration might have been somewhat easier, though. For instance, if the West Coast US states would have prohibited Chinese immigration but the rest of the US did not, then Chinese immigrants would not be able to arrive into the US on the West coast but they would still be able to arrive into the US on other coasts (such as the Atlantic coast) or by going through Canada or Mexico and then entering the US through a friendly US state.

Anyway - to delay Chinese Exclusion Acts, I suppose the easiest move is to have the eastern crisis of 1878 and the Russo-Ottoman War break out into general European war involving most European powers including Britain into an early WWI analogue lasting at least as long as WWI or WWII.

Putting the expanding USA on an immigrant labor starvation diet, because of British Empire and European conscription and shipping shortages, causes, causes western capital interests to overpower labor interests in wanting to keep Chinese labor flowing in exploiting the west's mines, even though they also try importing Mexican and southern black labor. The starvation of northern and midwestern industry jumpstarts the southern black great migration north. This in turn lines up southern Bourbon Democrats behind the option of bringing in Chinese hires as migrant plantation hands in parts of the south.

Would Bourbon Democrat support for this actually be long-lasting after the end of this early alt-WWI, though? After all, couldn't they resume using European labor for this after the end of this early alt-WWI? And in real life, Southern white politicians never advocated bringing in East Asians (or anyone else, really) to compensate for the exodus of a lot of their black labor during the Great Migration after 1910 in real life.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Yes, the argument of people such as Ilya Somin is that the US Constitution grants the US federal government power over naturalization but not over immigration itself.



Yeah, that's what I'm curious about as well. Once you're in the country, wouldn't you be free to move to other US states? I think that in the past, having US states regulate immigration might have been somewhat easier, though. For instance, if the West Coast US states would have prohibited Chinese immigration but the rest of the US did not, then Chinese immigrants would not be able to arrive into the US on the West coast but they would still be able to arrive into the US on other coasts (such as the Atlantic coast) or by going through Canada or Mexico and then entering the US through a friendly US state.



Would Bourbon Democrat support for this actually be long-lasting after the end of this early alt-WWI, though? After all, couldn't they resume using European labor for this after the end of this early alt-WWI? And in real life, Southern white politicians never advocated bringing in East Asians (or anyone else, really) to compensate for the exodus of a lot of their black labor during the Great Migration after 1910 in real life.

well that’s because after 1936 they had the mechanical cotton picker. They wouldn’t have it in the 19th century and did occasionally talk about Asian replacement then.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Ilya Somin is such a libertarian he probably is an an open borders fanatic and doesn’t think she’s can control immigration nor care that they can’t.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
well that’s because after 1936 they had the mechanical cotton picker. They wouldn’t have it in the 19th century and did occasionally talk about Asian replacement then.

TBF, immigration was restricted in the 1920s--1921 and 1924--so this was over a decade before 1936. And yet Southerners still weren't calling for importing Chinese in the 1921/1924-1936 time period.

Ilya Somin is such a libertarian he probably is an an open borders fanatic and doesn’t think she’s can control immigration nor care that they can’t.

Ilya is a male name. He's male. And Yes, he does believe in a presumption in favor of open borders. He even wrote a 2020 book about it called Free to Move. You can find this book for free on LibGen. The main issues that I myself see with open borders are average national IQ differences (what if the gaps won't close? Then the social safety net will be destroyed?), average national crime differences (again, what if the gaps won't close? Then crime could significantly increase!), and cultural differences, such as many Muslims tragically supporting the murder of people over things such as apostasy and "Islamophobic" speech.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
The main issues that I myself see with open borders are average national IQ differences (what if the gaps won't close? Then the social safety net will be destroyed?),
And there you go on your national IQ differences schtick again ... IQ tests are not a good measure of general intelligence unless you're looking for outliers.

As for Chinese exclusion. That was going to happen pretty quickly because even illiterate black former slaves and Mexicans who didn't speak English had much more in common with the white powers-that-were than imported Chinese laborers on account of being raised Christian if for no other reason.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
And there you go on your national IQ differences schtick again ... IQ tests are not a good measure of general intelligence unless you're looking for outliers.

As for Chinese exclusion. That was going to happen pretty quickly because even illiterate black former slaves and Mexicans who didn't speak English had much more in common with the white powers-that-were than imported Chinese laborers on account of being raised Christian if for no other reason.

TBF, Chinese could become Christian.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top