Moon, Krystyn
‘On a Temporary Basis’: The Emergence of Temporary Immigrant Categories in the United
States, 1880s-1930s
During the summer of 1939, four Greek deep-sea sponge divers were the beneficiaries of
personal legislation that allowed them to live in the United States indefinitely. John Marinis,
Nicolaos Elias, Ihoanis (Jean) Demetre Votsitsanos, and Michael Votsitsanos had come to the
United States in the late 1920s and early 1930s to work in the sponge industry off the coast of
Tarpon Springs, Florida. The Foran Act (1885) had banned such forms of contract labor;
however, these divers were permitted into the country thanks to an exception in the Immigration
Act of 1917. Unlike most immigrants, they could only stay temporarily and filed departure
bonds with the Immigration Bureau, which had expected them to leave after one year. For local
government officials and business leaders, these four men were central to Tarpon Springs’
sponge industry, and helped to employ numerous Americans who worked on ships or processed
sponges. Even during the Great Depression, few Americans were willing to do deep-sea diving,
which they recognized to be very dangerous, and the industry relied on foreigners.
The personal legislation proposed for these four men, however, did not permit them to
become U.S. citizens or even change occupations. Instead, they were allowed to stay only so
long as they remained sponge divers or were let go by their employers. Although there had been
some debate in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Greeks were legally considered
“white” and normally had access to naturalization like other European immigrants. 1 But the
combination of the quota system from the National Origins Act (1924) and the labor restrictions
of the Immigration Act (1917) made it difficult for Greeks to immigrate under U.S. law. Like
1
Yiorgos Anagnostou, “Forget the Past, Remember the Ancestors! Modernity, “Whiteness,” American
Hellenism, and the Politics of Memory in Early Greek America,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 22.1 (2004): 2571.
1
Moon, Krystyn
others before them, these four Greek men were trapped by an U.S. immigration policy that
desired their labor but not their persons, and as a consequence created a legal underclass whose
existence was rarely acknowledged officially. They were foreigners who were in the U.S. to
work for a particular industry based on labor needs. As such, the federal government did not
grant them the same rights as American citizens or even immigrants hoping to be naturalized,
neither of whom faced these kinds of restrictions. 2 If Marinis, Elias, and the two Votsitsanos left
deep-sea sponge diving, they would be required to leave the country or be deported. 3
Although the circumstances of these four Greek workers are somewhat unique (who
knew the U.S. suffered from a labor shortage of deep-sea sponge divers), their experiences are
far from extraordinary. As early as 1939, we can see many of the same problems that exist
currently with U.S. immigration policy and politics, but their roots run much deeper.
Immigration restrictions starting in the late nineteenth century were based on whom the federal
government deemed to be inadmissible to the body politic. Prostitutes, criminals, polygamists,
those who would likely become a public charge, the physically and mentally disabled, and later
anarchists and radicals were excluded. Immigration restrictions tied to contract labor and race
developed during this period, with the latter expanding over forty years starting in the 1880s to
include not only Chinese but also all Asians and Pacific Islanders and most southern and eastern
Europeans. 4 These latter categories—race and contract labor—shaped the ability of large
2
For discussions of the limited rights of immigrants waiting to become naturalized and naturalized U.S.
citizens, see Hiroshi Motomura, Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United
States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
3
House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, John Marinis, Nicolaos Elias, Ihoanis or Jean
Demetre Votsitsanos, and Michael Votsitsanos, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, Rept. 706, 1-5, https://web.lexisnexis.com/congcomp, (accessed 26 Nov. 2006). Based on information from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the files for Marinis, Elias, and the two Votsitsanos continue to be added to throughout the 1940s and 1950s
and include applications for citizenship. I have not accessed these files, however, because they are not public
documents and are under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act.
4
Roger Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants since 1882
(New York: Hill and Wang, 2004), 3-58.
2
Moon, Krystyn
numbers of foreigners to choose whether they wanted to reside permanently or to become U.S.
citizens.
This paper explores the origins and development of the American legal and bureaucratic
system that allowed foreigners who had been barred from coming into the country to enter
legally—although temporarily—prior to World War II. As immigration regulations became
more stringent in the early twentieth century, the categories for temporary admittance
correspondingly increased. In fact, policy makers appeared to have recognized the problems
with these immigration restrictions almost as soon as they passed them. Temporary immigration
categories, with the exception of tourists, were tied to the federal government’s attempt to
balance the employment interests of American business owners and entrepreneurs while
acknowledging the concerns of nativists and labor unions. Foreigners would only be allowed to
work in occupations that required a certain type of expertise and that did not take jobs away from
American workers. They would also be barred from becoming U.S. citizens or staying
indefinitely, thus deflating the anxieties that nativists had about American identity and racial
purity at the turn of the century.
Not surprisingly, the piecemeal nature of these temporary categories was never meant to
create a permanent underclass of non-citizens. In the end, temporary admittance became an “inbetween” category in American immigration law that explicitly limited the rights of individuals
and guaranteed that they did not have the same protections as U.S. citizens. Ultimately, this
approach, intentionally or not, proved to have an enduring impact on our immigration system and
continues to define how the federal government responds to these debates today.
3
Moon, Krystyn
There is a long history of various kinds of non-citizens in the United States starting in the
colonial period. Slaves, indentured servants, women, Native Americans, and denizens were
allowed to live in the colonies, but had limited to no rights. 5 The division between citizen and
non-citizen continued to be complicated in the antebellum period with states trying to control the
flow of people into their ports. By the 1820s, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, South
Carolina, and New York had created a bonding system that let them deport any persons that
became public charges within one year. 6 None of these states, however, created laws that
required that an individual’s residence only be temporary.
It was in the 1870s when federal legislation first appeared that not only barred certain
groups from immigrating, but also granted temporary entrance to these same immigrants. Up to
this period, the federal government had done little to regulate immigration and had only shored
up its plenary power to control the movement of people across international borders. The Page
Act (1875), which focused on Asian contract labor, prostitutes, and criminals, was the first piece
of federal immigration legislation to exclude immigrants. A bonding system was included as
part of the legislation that permitted shipmasters to post a $500 bond for deportees so that they
could contest an inspector’s decision in the federal courts. Bonds only allowed them to land for
six months. After which time and if the courts did not rule in their favor, they were required to
be returned to their port of departure at the cost of the shipmaster. 7 Of course, few deportees
were bonded and allowed to land; it was much cheaper for shipmasters to return these men and
women to their homelands.
5
Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2007), 24-25.
6
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Henderson v. Mayor of New York (1875) declared the state bonding
systems and head taxes unconstitutional, thus helping to solidify the power of the federal government to control
immigration. Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2002), 58, 68-69.
7
Statutes at Large, 18, pt. 3, ch. 141, 477-478.
4
Moon, Krystyn
The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) and the Foran Act (1885) created further sweeping
restrictions on who could enter the country, focusing on Chinese and European workers. The
Foran Act, which barred contract labor, was only loosely enforced and had many exceptions until
more stringent restrictions were passed in 1917. 8 From its inception, the Chinese Exclusion Act
stringently barred Chinese laborers for a period of ten years, after which time it was renewed in
1892 and 1902. It was made a permanent fixture in American immigration law in 1904.
Ironically, both pieces of legislation would require that the federal government, who was facing
pressures from business owners and entrepreneurs, to create a means to allow the entrance of
people who had otherwise been excluded.
Within a year of the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
asked the Attorney General whether laborers should be granted permission to travel through the
U.S. to other locations. Many islands in the Caribbean relied heavily on Chinese contract labor
after the abolition of slavery to work on sugar plantations and build railroads. 9 Without access to
American ports and railroads, labor contractors would be required to use more time consuming
means of transport and dangerous routes, such as sailing around Cape Horn or taking the railway
across the Isthmus of Panama. Furthermore, American shipping and railroad companies were
losing significant revenues from fees paid for transporting the large groups of laborers. The
Attorney General’s office, however, narrowly interpreted the Chinese Exclusion Act to mean that
no Chinese laborers were allowed to land in the United States, even if only passing through the
country. The Treasury Department was obviously not satisfied with this answer and repeatedly
renewed this request several more times during the 1880s and early 1890s. The signing of the
8
Aristide R. Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2006), 194-196; Daniels, 28-29.
9
Walton Look Lai, Indentured Labor, Caribbean Sugar: Chinese and Indian Migrants to the British West
Indies, 1838-1918 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
5
Moon, Krystyn
Gresham-Yang Treaty (1894) finally gave laborers the right to travel through the country to
another destination as long as they had appropriate documentation in hand. 10 What that
documentation should be was not initially clear. At first, the Treasury Department required that
Chinese laborers had to have one of two forms of identification: 1) a certificate from the
consulate’s office at their port of arrival that included personal information, a physical
description, and the date and location of their departure; or 2) other forms of documentation that
contained information similar to the consulate-issued certificate along with a transcontinental
train ticket. Later, to further ensure that laborers made it to their final destination, the U.S.
Congress passed legislation to require that individuals, transportation companies, or
representatives working on the behalf of an individual laborer obtain bonds to guarantee their
departure within twenty days of their arrival. 11 No legislators seemed interested in banning the
transportation of Chinese laborers through the country outright, although American newspapers
expressed concerns that Chinese laborers would manipulate the transit clause to their own
advantage and disappear into the Chinese American community. 12
Other travelers from China who had the potential to become permanent residents—
Chinese immigrants could not become U.S. citizens until World War II—created problems for
the immigration inspectors and legislators as well. Categorized as laborers, Chinese
crewmembers (sailors, cooks, and servants) were required to stay on board their ships unless they
had originally departed from an American port. 13 At times, they were forced to stay on board for
weeks at a time; even going from one ship to another while in port was a hassle. To complicate
10
Attorney General, Richard Olney, to Secretary of the Treasury, John G. Carlisle, 8 Jan. 1894, Opinions of
the Attorney General, vol. 20 (Washington, DC: General Printing Office, 1894), 693-695.
11
Fok Young Yo v. U.S., 185 U.S. 296 (1902), http://findlaw.com (accessed on 21 Feb. 2008).
12
“Chinese in Transit,” The Washington Post 11 Jan. 1894, 5, http://proquest.umi.com (accessed on 21
Feb. 2008); Fok Young Yo v. U.S., 185 U.S. 296 (1902), http://findlaw.com (accessed on 21 Feb. 2008).
13
“Making a Law Unpopular,” New York Times 29 Sept. 1882, 4, http://proquest.umi.com (accessed on 21
Feb. 2008).
6
Moon, Krystyn
matters, the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act was constantly changing. In 1886, the
Treasury Department began to permit Chinese crewmembers to land temporarily under bond in
order to sail on another ship in the same port. They would be excluded two years later by an
amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act that only allowed “teachers, students, merchants, or
travelers for pleasure or curiosity” to enter the country. 14 By 1896, the immigration inspector in
New York City started to grant Chinese working on ships permission to land temporarily under
bond. But the Immigration Bureau refused to condone this procedure, and the inspector’s office
in New York was censured. 15
Even men who had been hired by the U.S. Navy were barred from landing in the U.S.
The Treasury Department’s refusal to allow Chinese crewmembers to disembark, even
temporarily, came to head during the Spanish-American War (1898). Admiral George Dewey,
who had overseen the American victory during the Battle of Manila, requested that the fifty or so
Chinese employed by the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, many of whom fought during the battle, be
given access to U.S. citizenship. 16 Most likely in response to questions surrounding Chinese
working in the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Senate had begun debating an amendment to the Chinese
Exclusion Act that would permit Chinese crews to land temporarily under bond two weeks
earlier. Neither access to citizenship nor temporary admittance was acceptable to the U.S.
Congress. Thus, when Chinese crewmembers on the S. S. Olympia (one of the ships that had
fought the Spaniards during the Battle of Manila) wanted to land in New York City and march in
Dewey’s victory parade, they needed special permission from the Treasury Department. Perhaps
14
“Notes from Washington,” New York Times 30 Apr. 1886, 3, http://proquest.umi.com (accessed 23 Feb.
2008); Treasury Department, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury Transmitting to the Senate the Departmental
Regulations Relating to Chinese Exclusion and the Date and Authority by which such Regulations were Adopted,
57th Cong., 1st sess., 1902, S. Doc. 300, 23, https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp, (accessed 26 Nov. 2006).
15
Treasury Department, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, 54.
16
“Chinese on Dewey’s Ships,” New York Times 16 July 1898, 7, http://proquest.umi.com (accessed on 21
Feb. 2008).
7
Moon, Krystyn
out of fear of retribution against these men or his own anti-Chinese attitudes, the captain of the
Olympia ultimately refused to let them land. 17 By the beginning of the twentieth century, it
became common practice among immigration inspectors to grant Chinese crewmembers
permission to land under bond; legislation was finally passed in 1909. 18
Chinese actors, too, felt the fickleness of American immigration policies during the late
nineteenth century. In 1883, a federal court ruled that actors were not laborers and, therefore,
could immigrate and remain permanently if they chose to do so. But, like sailors, were excluded
in 1888, leaving Chinese theaters and other entertainment venues to rely on the remaining actors
in the country or to develop American-grown talent. When the barring of Chinese performers
became a problem for the white organizers of the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the
U.S. Congress finally changed its stance. Fair organizers were given permission to bring
acrobats and opera singers to perform in the Chinese Village and along the Midway. 19 They
were required to leave within six months of the last day of the exposition. The fact that these
performers entered temporarily, spoke to the government’s recognition that Americans wanted to
see these acts, but did not necessarily want these performers to have the option to live
permanently in the U.S.
Through pressure from theatrical agents, the Immigration Bureau finally created a special
policy for other Chinese performers to come into the country with the arrival of Zhu Lian Kui,
17
“Admits Chinese Seaman and Stewards,” The Washington Post 28 Jun. 1898, 4, http://proquest.umi.com
(accessed 23 Feb. 2008); “Dewey Gives Way before Admirers,” New York Times 29 Sept. 1899, 1,
http://proquest.umi.com (accessed 23 Feb. 2008).
18
Immigration Commission, Alien Seamen and Stowaways, enclosed with S.R. 5866, 61th Cong., 3rd sess.,
5 Dec. 1910, 357-358, https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp, (accessed 26 Nov. 2006).
19
They also brought in a limited number laborers to set up the Chinese exhibits and work the concessions.
“Chinese Actors Coming,” New York Times 6 April 1893, 2, http://www.proquest.com (accessed on 15 August
2006).
8
Moon, Krystyn
popularly known as Ching Ling Foo, and his troupe in 1912. 20 Ching had caused problems for
the Immigration Bureau in 1898 when he and his troupe performed at the Trans-Mississippi and
International Exposition in Omaha, Nebraska. Instead of going back to China at the closing of
the exposition, Ching hit the Keith-Albee vaudeville circuit. 21 The U.S. commissioner-general
of the Immigration Bureau, however, ordered that Ching and his troupe be deported to China in
early April 1899. In response, Ching demanded to have a deportation hearing and, by the end of
the month, Judge Christian C. Kohlsaat of the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court
sided with him. 22 In 1912, Ching and his troupe arrived from Europe with a contract from one of
New York’s most famous impresario Oscar Hammerstein I. 23 The Immigration Bureau would
only allow them into the U.S. on a temporary basis. In internal correspondence written a few
years later, the assistant commissioner explained the bureau’s policy to an immigrant inspector in
New York City: “As you are doubtless aware, Chinese persons coming to the United States in
the capacity of acrobats or vaudeville performers are not admissible…. However, the practice
has grown up of admitting troupes of such acrobats or actors to responsible parties under
bonds….” 24 Because they were continuously under contract, Ching and his troupe were able to
renew their bonds and stayed in the U.S. from 1912 through 1915.
20
It was not until 1922 that Chinese entrepreneurs were finally allowed to bring Chinese actors and
musicians into the U.S. temporarily to work in Chinese theaters.
21
“Gifted Ching Ling Foo,” New York Times 24 Sept. 1899, 18; “A Millionaire Magician,” Philadelphia
Record n.d., Harvard Theatre Collection, Cambridge, Mass.
22
United States v. Ching Ling Foo,et al., U.S. District Court, Chicago, Ill., 26 April 1899; Criminal
Records, Criminal Docket Books, vol. 4, case 2989; National Archives, Great Lake Regions, Chicago, Ill. Erika Lee
notes that Chinese immigrants in general were successful in fighting deportation through the federal courts. Lee, At
America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2003), 47-48.
23
Ching Ling Foo, accession E9, file 52903-62A, Subject Correspondence, 1906-32, Records of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Labor, Record Group 85; National Archives, Washington,
D.C.
24
Assistant Commissioner-General, New York, NY, to Chinese Inspector in Charge, New York, NY, 29
January 1916, file #29/417, Chinese Exclusion Case Files, 1895-1943, Records of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Department of Labor, Record Group 85; National Archives, New York, NY.
9
Moon, Krystyn
Anxieties over immigration throughout the 1910s and 1920s fueled legislators to pass
more restrictive legislation that ultimately led to more immigrants only being permitted to enter
the country temporarily. The Immigration Act of 1917, otherwise known as the Barred Zone
Act, reaffirmed the temporary status of Chinese crewmembers, laborers in transit, and
entertainers. More significantly, it excluded almost all Asians and Pacific Islanders, included a
literacy test and an $8 head tax, and allowed the Secretary of Labor to bring in skilled laborers
temporarily under contract in times of national necessity. 25 Asians and Pacific Islanders who had
previously been able to travel freely in the U.S. now faced the same kind of restrictions that
Chinese immigrants had been dealing with since the 1880s. Furthermore, the categories of
temporary admittance that were created for the Chinese were now applied to all Asians and
Pacific Islanders.
Immediately after the passage of the Immigration Act (1917), the Secretary of Labor used
his power to suspend the Foran Act and offset labor shortage caused by World War I. European
immigrants were no longer traveling to the U.S. because of the war and Asians and Pacific
Islanders, who were often seen as a cheap labor pool in the Far West, were barred. To
compound matters, Americans were involved with the war effort, with several million ablebodied young men being sent Europe or working in the defense industry. American business
owners, especially in agriculture, mining, and railroads, needed to find a cheap labor pool, and
one that would be easy to transport into the country. They turned south to Mexico and, with
permission from the Department of Labor, brought at least 80,000 Mexicans into the country, the
25
The Asian and Pacific Islanders who were exempted from the Barred Zone Act were the following:
“[g]overnment officers, ministers or religious teachers, missionaries, lawyers, physicians, chemists, civil engineers,
teachers, students, authors, artists, merchants, and travelers for curiosity or pleasure….” Immigration Act of 1917,
Public Law 301, U.S. Statutes at Large 29 (1917): 874-877, http://heinonline.org/ (accessed on 11 March 2008).
10
Moon, Krystyn
largest admittance of immigrants on a temporary basis prior to World War II. 26 These workers
were supposed to stay until the end of the war. But many were able to find continuous
employment until a post-war depression hit the country in 1920-1921; still others stayed in the
U.S. until the massive deportation of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the 1930s.
Despite the ease with which government bureaucrats used certain aspects of the
Immigration Act (1917), some immigration inspectors had questions concerning its
implementation, especially the status of South Asian sailors. Although South Asians were from
part of the “barred zone,” they were legally considered to be white since the early 1910s.
Because of this discrepancy, South Asian sailors, who had been sailing on American and British
ships since the late eighteenth century, continued to be treated as they had been before the
passage of the Immigration Act (1917). 27 Perhaps in response to the hyper-nativist sentiments
embodied in the Emergency Quota Act (1921), immigration inspectors began to treat South
Asian sailors and crews as temporary visitors who were required to take out bonds to ensure their
departure in 1922. 28 The number of South Asian sailors and crews were so large, however, that
immigration inspectors in some ports requested blanket bonds—as opposed to filling out
paperwork on each individual—to streamline the process and ease their case backlog. 29
Ironically, within a few months of allowing South Asians sailors and crews to land only
26
Bennis Nodín Valdés, Al Norte: Agricultural Workers in the Great Lakes Region, 1917-1970 (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1991), 8-10; Douglas Monroy, Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the Great Migration
to the Great Depression (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 98-99.
27
Rozina Visram, Indians in Britain: A 400 Year History (London: Pluto Press, 2002), 1-104; Joan M.
Jensen, Passage from India: Asian Indian Immigrants in North America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).
28
Barber S.S. Line Query Re: Landing East Indian Crewmen under Bond, 28 Sept. 1922, File 55490-7;
Ellis Island Forwards Bonds… for 23 British Indians, 1 November 1922, File 55270-246; Subject Index to
Correspondence and Case Files of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Records of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Department of Labor, Record Group 85; National Archives, Washington, D.C, Microfilm
T458, Roll 4.
29
New Orleans Accepted $29,000 Blanket Bond… for 58 East Indians, 4 May 1923, File 54490-7; Subject
Index to Correspondence and Case Files of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Records of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Department of Labor, Record Group 85; National Archives, Washington, D.C,
Microfilm T458, Roll 4.
11
Moon, Krystyn
temporarily, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) that South
Asians were legally not white and therefore unable to become naturalized citizens. 30
In 1924, American nativism culminated in the passage of the National Origins Quota Act.
Once again, because of the restrictive nature of the legislation, the number of immigrants
allowed into the country on a non-permanent basis expanded. For Asians and Pacific Islanders,
those who were part of the exempted categories in the Immigration Act (1917) were now only to
be permitted into the country temporarily. 31 Furthermore, those southern and eastern European
immigrants who were unable to obtain one of the quota slots or were not considered a non-quota
immigrant could enter the country, but they could not become permanent residents or pursue
American citizenship. These restrictions were complicated by the fact that these individuals had
to demonstrate that they were coming for work, business, or a vacation, and at the same time
were not in violation of the Foran Act.
For many southern and eastern European immigrants the emerging crises in Europe
during the 1930s propelled some to turn to the U.S. for asylum. Because many had their assets
frozen and property confiscated, they were seen by the Immigration Bureau and American
consulate offices as public charges. Since the turn of the century, all immigrants were required
to demonstrate that they had enough money to become established in the U.S. and not rely on
charities. If they could not, they were declared “likely to become a public charge” (or LPC), and
either denied a visa to travel to the U.S. or deported upon arrival. It is probable that some
southern and eastern Europeans came into the country on tourist visas and disappeared into
immigrant communities. Others turned to American politicians and the Immigration Bureau for
30
31
U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), www.findlaw.com (accessed on 26 March 2008).
Arthur E. Cook, Immigration Laws of the United States (Chicago: Callaghan and Company, 1929), 90.
12
Moon, Krystyn
special permission to stay. Tied to American nativism and especially anti-Semitism, the U.S.
Congress refused to pass legislation to deal unilaterally with the genocide that was occuring. 32
A few refugees were able to receive personal legislation to stay temporarily until the end
of World War II.33 In 1938, Dr. Gustav Weil and his family arrived in New York City with
appropriate documentation in hand from the American consulate’s office in Stuttgart, Germany.
They had fled their homeland because of the Nazis persecution of the Jews, which had stripped
Dr. Weil of his medical license and most of his personal assets. Although they had the
appropriate paperwork to enter the country, all of the Weils were excluded on the account of Dr.
Weil’s psychological collapse from his experiences in Germany (the Immigration Bureau barred
his wife and daughter because he was the primary breadwinner). They were only allowed into
the country for six months and only for his hospitalization. In a letter to the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization, the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, explained the problem
surrounding the Weils’ case and the need for personal legislation to overturn the Immigration
Bureau’s actions: “[i]n a desire to be consistent with my recommendation made in the cases of
other aliens who are here temporarily but who fear return abroad because of the existing
international situation, it is my recommendation that the Congress take the same action in this
case consistent with whatever policy it is to make in other cases of a similar type.” 34 By the
32
Leonard Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
There are also several cases of southern and eastern European immigrants who came into the country
illegally and requested special personal legislation in order to not be deported. House Committee on Immigration
and Naturalization, Relief of Sundry Aliens, 75th Congress, 1st Session, 24 March 1937, Rep. 485, 1-20
https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp, (accessed 26 Nov. 2006).
34
House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Dr. Gustav Weil, Irma Weil, and Marion Weil,
th
78 Congress, 3rd Session, 3 June 1940, Rep. 2366, 2 https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp, (accessed 26 Nov.
2006).
33
13
Moon, Krystyn
beginning of World War II, the Immigration Bureau gave most European and Asian refugees
temporary status for the duration of the war. 35
By the beginning of the twentieth century, a bonding system was created for three groups
of Chinese immigrants to guarantee that they would only stay temporarily: laborers who were
being transported across the country to a final destination other than the U.S., entertainers who
had been recruited to work at world expositions on American soil, and sailors, cooks, and
servants working on ships that had docked in American ports. These bonds, which had their
roots in legislation that permitted individual states to deport the indigent during the antebellum
period, had now become a process to allow certain kinds of immigrants into the country to work
and simultaneously deny them access to permanent residency and citizenship. The system
expanded throughout the early twentieth century as restrictions increased, affecting southern and
eastern Europeans, Mexicans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. In what can be seen as an ironic
twist, temporary statuses also became a loophole for a handful of European and Asian refugees
during the late 1930s and early 1940s, who were looking for a safe haven from persecution and
genocide.
More importantly, temporary immigration categories were part of a much larger
phenomenon, and speaks to the darker side of a process designed to exclude and control people
based on race and occupation. Like today, past policy debates about temporary immigrants were
a conflation of real or perceived labor competition, notions of American identity, and national
security. By re-examining the historical context of American immigration policy and the roots of
35
Instruction #105: New Procedure for Handling Applications for Extensions of Temporary Admissions,
31 Oct. 1942, File 56013-380; Subject Index to Correspondence and Case Files of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Labor, Record Group
85; National Archives, Washington, D.C, Microfilm T458, Roll 4.
14
Moon, Krystyn
today’s temporary immigrant categories, we are reminded that this is a century old struggle to
reconcile the belief that the United States is a country that welcomes all people and the internal
conflict about who those people should be.
15