Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T20:35:42.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global norms, domestic institutions and the transformation of immigration policy in Canada and the US

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2010

TRIADAFILOS TRIADAFILOPOULOS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the liberalisation of immigration policy in Canada and the US in the post-World War II era. I argue that shifting norms pertaining to race, ethnicity, and human rights cast longstanding discriminatory policies in Canada and the US in a highly critical light. Opponents of racially discriminatory immigration policies exploited this shift in normative contexts to highlight the disjuncture between Canada and the US’ postwar commitments to liberal norms and human rights, on the one hand, and their extant policy regimes, on the other. The resulting pressure set in motion comparable processes of policy stretching and unravelling, which culminated in policy shifting in the mid-1960s. Policy shifting was, however, subject to very different political dynamics. Whereas Canada's institutional configuration granted the executive branch and bureaucracy a high degree of autonomy that enabled experimentation, the greater openness of the American political system led to a more politicised process, marked by compromises and deal-making. Thus while changing norms prompted the liberalisation of immigration policies in both countries, differences in their domestic political contexts resulted in very different admissions regimes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 169 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos, ‘Building Walls, Bounding Nations: Migration and Exclusion in Canada and Germany, 1870–1939’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 17:4 (2004), pp. 385–427; Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 39–90; Mae M. Ngai, ‘The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924’, The Journal of American History, 86 (June 1999), pp. 67–92; Elazar Barkar, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in the US and Britain between the World Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

2 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘Global Movements, Global Walls: Responses to Migration, 1885–1925’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Global History and Migrations (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 279–308.

3 Debra L. DeLaet, US Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000), p. 11.

4 Randall Hansen and Jobst Koehler, ‘Issue Definition, Political Discourse and the Politics of Nationality Reform in France and Germany’, European Journal of Political Research, 44 (2005), pp. 626. Also see Christian Joppke, Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005); Patrick Weil, ‘Access to Citizenship: A Comparison of Twenty-five Nationality Laws’, in T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (eds), Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001).

5 Both states regulated migration so as to exclude non-whites and favour ‘Nordic races’ – that is, groups from northern and western Europe. The US’ National Origins Quota Acts also ranked European ‘races’; immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were deemed inferior and therefore subject to strict restrictions. While Canada also discriminated against southern and Eastern Europeans, there was no formal system devised for restricting their admission. Rather, policy was adjusted according to economic demands, with ‘non-preferred’ Europeans accepted during economic good times and excluded during downturns. For details on Canada see Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998). For the US see Ngai, ‘The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law’.

6 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘International Migrations in Political Perspective’, in Mary M. Kritz, Charles B. Keely and Silvano M. Tomasi (eds), Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movements (New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1981), pp. 5, 8; Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘Wanted but Not Welcome: Alien Labor in Western Development’, in William Alonso (ed.), Population in an Interacting World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 37–73; Michael Walzer, ‘The Distribution of Membership’, in Peter G. Brown and Henry Shue (eds), Boundaries: National Autonomy and its Limits (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1981), p. 2.

7 Peter Schuck, ‘Immigration Law and the Problem of Community’, in Nathan Glazer (ed.), Clamor at the Gates: The New American Immigration (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1985), pp. 285–6. I contend that admissions policies governing legal entry into a state fall under the rubric of membership policies and should therefore not be sharply distinguished from so-called ‘immigrant policies’ governing the conferral of rights and regulation of naturalisation. This is particularly true of states such as Canada and the US, where an individual's admission as a legal immigrant is considered the first step in his or her integration into citizenship. More generally, the very act of crossing a state boundary entails a shift in membership status. As Aristide Zolberg has persuasively argued, ‘transnational migration entails not merely movement in relation to environmental space, but a process whereby, in deviation from the universal norm in terms of which the world is organized, individuals and the activities they carry out are transferred, temporarily or permanently, from the domain of one state to that of another. Distance traveled is incidental; what matters is the crossing of a boundary.’ ‘Contemporary Transnational Migrations in Historical Perspective: Patterns and Dilemmas’, in Mary M. Kritz (ed.), US Immigration and Refugee Policy: Domestic and Global Issues (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1983), p. 16.

8 Stephen Castles, ‘How Nation-States Respond to Immigration and Ethnic Diversity’, New Community, 21:3 (1995), pp. 293–308.

9 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America’, (paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Political Science Association), pp. 4–5.

10 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘International Migration Policies in a Changing World System’, in William H. McNeill and Ruth S. Adams (eds), Human Migration: Patterns and Policies (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978), pp. 244–51; ‘Bounded States in a Global Market: The Uses of International Labor Migrations’, in Pierre Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society (New York: Russell Sage Foundations and Boulder: Colorado: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 311–2.

11 Alan C. Cairns, Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000), p. 41.

12 Alan C. Cairns, ‘Empire, Globalization, and the Fall and Rise of Diversity’, in Alan C. Cairns et al (eds), Citizenship, Diversity, and Pluralism: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999), pp. 24–5.

13 Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52:4 (Autumn 1998), p. 909; Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Cultural Norms and National Security (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 5.

14 Joppke, Selecting By Origin, pp. 34–6;

15 My approach draws on insights from historical institutionalism, generally, and Peter Hall's theory of ‘paradigm shift’ in particular. See Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo, ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, in Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth (eds), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 1–32; Peter A. Hall, ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25:3 (April 1993), pp. 277–80; Peter Hall, ‘Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State: The Case of Macroeconomic Policy-Making in Britain’, in Stephen Brooks and Alain-G. Gagnon (eds), Social Scientists, Policy, and the State (Westport: Connecticut: Praeger, 1990).

16 Hall, ‘Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State’, p. 61.

17 Neil Bradford, ‘Public-Private Partnership? Shifting Paradigms of Economic Governance in Ontario’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36:5 (December 2003), p. 1006.

18 Stephen Krasner, ‘Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective’, Comparative Political Studies, 21:1 (1988), pp. 66–94.

19 Hall, ‘Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State’, p. 61; Hall, ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State’, pp. 277–80.

20 As per Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink's ‘spiral model’ of state socialisation. See ‘The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction’ in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 25. Also see Thomas Risse, ‘International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Arena’, Politics and Society, 27:4 (December 1999), p. 538.

21 Processes by which global norms are entrenched into domestic policies are usefully discussed in Kai Alderson, ‘Making Sense of State Socialization’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001, pp. 415–33.

22 Kelley and Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic, p. 449.

23 Daniel Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 29–30.

24 Aristide R. Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 290.

25 George J. Borjas, Heaven's Door: Immigration and the American Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 8.

26 Whether this reputation is based on a proper understanding of Canadian immigration policy is open to question.

27 Ayelet Shachar, ‘The Race for Talent: Highly Skilled Migrants and Competitive Immigration Regimes’, New York University Law Review, 81 (2006), pp. 101–58.

28 Yasemin Nuhoğlu Soysal, Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 1.

29 Ibid., ‘Changing Citizenship in Europe: Remarks on Postnational Membership and the National State’, in David Ceasarini and Mary Fulbrook (eds), Citizenship, Nationality andMigration in Europe (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 21.

30 Soysal, Limits of Citizenship, p. 3.

31 David Jacobson, Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), p. 9.

32 Saskia Sassen, ‘The de facto Transnationalizing of Immigration Policy’, in Christian Joppke (ed.), Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the US (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 72.

33 Christian Joppke, ‘Immigration Challenges the Nation-State’, in Christian Joppke (ed.), Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the US (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 18.

34 For related positions see James F. Hollifield, Immigrants, Markets, and States: The Political Economy of Postwar Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992); Gary Freeman, ‘Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic Societies’, International Migration Review, 29:4 (1995), pp. 881–902.

35 Christian Joppke, ‘The Legal-Domestic Sources of Immigrant Rights: The US, Germany, and the European Union’, Comparative Political Studies, 34:4 (May 2001), pp. 339–36.

36 Martha Finnemore, ‘Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50:2 (Spring 1996), p. 343. For a concise summary of the Stanford School's core arguments see John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M. Thomas and Francisco O. Ramirez, ‘World Society and the Nation-State’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:1 (July 1997), pp. 144–81.

37 Amy Gurowitz, ‘Mobilizing International Norms: Domestic Actors, Immigrants, and the Japanese State’, World Politics, 51 (April 1999), pp. 414–5; Alderson, ‘Making Sense of State Socialization’, p. 416.

38 Christian Joppke, ‘Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration’, World Politics, 50 (January 1998), pp. 268–9; Myron Weiner, The Global Migration Crisis (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), pp. 80–3. Also see Amy Gurowitz, ‘Mobilizing International Norms: Domestic Actors, Immigrants and the State’, (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1999).

39 Sassen, ‘The de facto Transnationalizing of Immigration Policy’, p. 70; Rogers Brubaker, ‘Comment on “Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States”’, International Migration Review, 29:4 (Winter 1995), pp. 909–13.

40 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘Global Movements, Global Walls: Responses to Migration, 1885–1925’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Global History and Migrations (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 279–303.

41 Ian Hany-López, White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New York: New York University Press, 1996); Angelo N. Ancheta, Race, Rights, and the Asian American Experience (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1998). For Canada see James W. St. G. Walker, ‘Race’, Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997).

42 In his more recent work, Christian Joppke has revised his argument, acceding that changes in international norms following World War II did indeed have a profound affect on liberal-democratic states’ approaches to immigration policy. See Selecting By Origin, pp. 27–28, 52. Yet, Joppke continues to insist that the demise of ‘settler states’ ethnoracial admissions policies’ was driven by ‘domestic society’ and not ‘international regimes’ (p. 28). The position developed in this article differs from Joppke's in that it sees domestic societies’ views and interests emerging out of interaction with an encompassing normative context. It is not a question of international regimes compelling states to behave in certain ways; understandings of what constitutes legitimate conduct are themselves fashioned out of the interplay of encompassing norms and more specific state interests. Moreover, my approach allows us to see how interest based decisions which reflect strategic reactions to changing normative standards (‘policy stretching’) can give way to a more fundamental reappraisal of precisely what constitutes a state's ‘interest’ in the sphere of immigration policy.

43 House of Commons, Debates, 1 May 1947, pp. 2644–6.

44 ‘Asiatic Immigration into Canada’, Canadian National Archives, RG 76, vol. 854, file 554-5, pt.1.

45 Carol Lee, ‘The Road to Enfranchisement: Chinese and Japanese in British Columbia’, B.C. Studies, 30 (1976), pp. 44–76; F. J. McEvoy, ‘“A Symbol of Racial Discrimination”: The Chinese Immigration Act and Canada's Relation with China, 1942–1947’, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 14:3 (1982), pp. 24–42.

46 Canada, House of Commons, Special Committee on Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 11, 14 March 1955, p. 301.

47 ‘Memorandum to Cabinet: Admission of Restricted Classes of Immigrants, June 10, 1952’, RG 26, vol. 125, file 3-33-7, vol. 2.

48 Hawkins, Canada and Immigration, p. 102.

49 Confidential Letter from Director of Immigration, C. E. S. Smith, to Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, G. McInnes, 17 January 1957. National Archives of Canada RG 76, vol. 830, file 552-1-644, pt. 2.

50 Linda Freeman, The Ambiguous Champion: Canada and South Africa in the Trudeau and Mulroney Years (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 19.

51 Robert Bothwell, Alliance and Illusion: Canada and the World, 1945–1984 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2007), p. 143.

52 See ‘Meeting of Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth: Report by Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, House of Commons, May 16, 1960’, in Arthur E. Blanchette (ed.), Canadian Foreign Policy 1955–1965: Selected Speeches and Documents (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977), pp. 302–6; Freeman, The Ambiguous Champion, p. 25.

53 Telegraph from Canadian Trade Commissioner in Port-of Spain to Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, 20 March 1961.

54 ‘Immigration by Discrimination’, The Black Worker, March 1952. National Archives of Canada, RG 26, vol. 123, file 3-32-24; National Archives of Canada, Box 266, RG 76, vol. 830, file 552-1-644, pt. 2.

55 David Corbett, ‘Canada's Immigration Policy, 1957–1962’, International Journal, 18:2 (Spring 1963), p. 173.

56 Memorandum to Cabinet: Immigration Agreements with Pakistan and Ceylon, 23 October 1958. National Archives of Canada, RG 76, vol. 948, file SF-C-1-1, pt. 2.

57 Ibid. National Archives of Canada, RG 76, vol. 948, file SF-C-1-1, pt. 2.

58 Memorandum to Cabinet: Immigration Policies and Procedures (Immigration from China and Japan), 8 August 1958. National Archives of Canada, RG 76, vol. 948, file SF-C-1-1, pt. 2.

59 Alan Green, Immigration and the Postwar Canadian Economy (Toronto: Macmillan-Hunter Press, 1976), pp. 34–5; Sunera Thobani, Exalted Subjects: Studies in the Making of Race and Nation in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), p. 146.

60 See Memorandum from Director of Immigration to Deputy Minister of Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Immigration Policy and Programming as Related to Economic and Employment Factors in Canada, 9 December 1960. National Archives of Canada, RG 26, vol. 75, file 1-1-1, pt. 2.

61 In fact, efforts were stepped up to generate increased immigration from traditional European sources though advertising and other means. It was felt that Canada's passive approach to immigration was costing it in terms of attracting highly skilled Europeans. See materials in RG 26, vol. 75, file 1-1-8, pt. 3; RG 76, vol. 909, file 572-15, pt. 2.

62 Memorandum to Cabinet Re: Immigration Regulations, 16 October 1961. National Archives of Canada, RG 26, vol. 100, file 3-15-1, pt. 8.

63 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988), p. 131.

64 Memorandum from Assistant Deputy Minister to Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, 21 January 1966. National Archives of Canada, RG 26, vol. 145, file 3-33-6; cited in Satzewich, ‘Racism and Canadian Immigration Policy’, p. 84.

65 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, ‘Tabling of White Paper on Government Policy’, 14 October 1966, p. 8652.

66 Canada, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Immigration, Minutes of the Proceedings and Evidence, no. 9, p. 407.

67 Hawkins, Canada and Immigration, p. 162.

68 Ibid.; Kelley and Trebilcock, Making the Mosaic, pp. 358–61.

69 Memorandum from the Assistant Deputy Minister (Immigration) to the Deputy Minister on the Parliamentary Committee on Immigration, 19 February 1968, p. 6. National Archives of Canada, RG 76, vol. 966, file 5000-14-2, pt. 14.

70 Memorandum to Cabinet, Re: A New Immigration Selection System: Amendments to the Immigration Regulations, Part I, National Archives of Canada, RG 76, vol. 948, file SF-C-1-1, pt. 3.

71 Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 290; Bill Ong Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy, 1850–1990 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), p. 110. Zolberg rightly notes that war time considerations ‘also occasioned the relocation and large-scale internment of some 110,000 West Coasters of Japanese origin, including not only 40,000 foreign-born who remained alien by virtue of the prohibition on their naturalization but also 70,000 American-born children.’ Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 298.

72 Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, pp. 39–44.

73 Cited in Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton: Princeton University Pres, 2002), p. 179.

74 Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, p. 47.

75 Aristide R. Zolberg, ‘From Invitation to Interdiction: US Foreign Policy and Immigration since 1945’, in Michael S. Teitelbaum and Myron Weiner (eds), Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration and US Policy (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1995), p. 123.

76 Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 308.

77 Zolberg, ‘From Invitation to Interdiction’, p. 125.

78 Cited in Marion T. Bennett, ‘The Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952, as Amended to 1965’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (September 1966), pp. 129–30.

79 Bennett, ‘The Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952’, p. 131.

80 Roger Daniels, Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882 (New York: Hill and Wang, 2004), p. 116.

81 Tichenor, Dividing Lines, p. 196.

82 Congressional Quarterly Almanac (1952), p. 159.

83 Jeffrey Togman, The Ramparts of Nations: Institutions and Immigration Policies in France and the US (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2002), p. 36; Desmond King, The Liberty of Strangers: Making the American Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 127.

84 Cited in Desmond King, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of Diverse Democracy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 237.

85 ‘Truman Assails Eisenhower as Supporting Isolationists’, The New York Times (18 October 1952).

86 ‘Eisenhower Accepts “Nazi” Racial Views, Truman Declares’, Washington Evening Star (17 October 1952).

87 Tichenor, Dividing Lines, pp. 179–80.

88 Commission on Immigration and Nationalization, Whom We Shall Welcome (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953).

89 Tichenor, Dividing Lines, pp. 203–4.

90 Joppke, Selecting By Origin, p. 55.

91 Tichenor, Dividing Lines, p. 205; Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 297.

92 Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 300.

93 King, Making Americans, p. 239; Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, pp. 47–48. On the Hungarian Refugee Crisis see Arthur A. Markowitz, ‘Humanitarianism versus Restrictionism: The US and the Hungarian Refugees’, International Migration Review, 7:1 (Spring 1973), pp. 46–59; and Philip Wolgin, ‘Whom Shall We Accept? Immigrants, Refugees, and the Limits of Liberalization in the Early Cold War’ (unpublished ms. Department of History, University of California Berkeley).

94 Joppke, Selecting By Origin, p. 54. Also see Gary Gerstle, American Crucible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

95 DeLaet, US Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights, p. 39.

96 Kennedy made immigration policy one of his central concerns as a member of the US Senate. See Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 325.

97 Bennett, ‘The Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952’, pp. 135–6.

98 Tichenor, Dividing Lines, p. 209.

99 David M. Reimers, ‘Recent Immigration Policy: An Analysis’, in Barry R. Chiswick (ed.), The Gateway: US Immigration Issues and Policies (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1982), pp. 13–53.

100 Abba P. Schwartz, The Open Society (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1968), p. 114; Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, pp. 50–51.

101 Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, p. 50.

102 Ibid., p. 52.

103 James G. Gimpel and James R. Edwards, Jr., The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p. 102.

104 Cited in Skrentny, The Minority Rights Revolution, p. 55.

105 Zolberg, A Nation by Design, pp. 332–3.

106 Edward M. Kennedy, ‘The Immigration Act of 1965’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 367:1 (1966), p. 147.

107 Zolberg, A Nation by Design, p. 333.

108 Cited in Reimers, ‘Recent Immigration Policy’, p. 38.

109 US Census Bureau, Facts for Features, 19 April 2004, available online at {http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001738.html}.

110 Citizenship and Immigration Canada, The Monitor, no. 1/2 (Spring 2003), {http://www.cic.gc/english/monitor/issue01/02-immigrants.html}. For discussion see Doreen M. Indra, ‘Changes in Canadian Immigration Patterns Over the Past Decade with a Special Reference to Asia’, in K. Victor Ujimoto and Gordon Hirabayashi (eds), Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980); Warren Kalbach, ‘A Demographic Overview of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Canada’, and Jean Leonard Elliot and Augie Fleras, ‘Immigration and the Canadian Ethnic Mosaic’, both in Peter S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990).

111 Ironically, contemporary critics of American immigration policy often draw attention to the 1965 Act's privileging of family reunification, arguing that it threatens the maintenance of ‘American national identity’ by allowing for ‘immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico’. See Samuel P. Huntington, ‘The Hispanic Challenge’, Foreign Policy, 136 (March/April 2004).