Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Immigration
- All Subjects: American West
Description
This dissertation focuses on a quasi-governmental committee formed in November, 1932 during the interim Mexican presidency of Abelardo L. Rodríguez. “El Comité Nacional de Repatriación” (The National Repatriation Committee) brought together Mexican businessmen, politicians, social-aid administrators and government officials to deal with the U.S. repatriations of “ethnic Mexicans” (Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans). The Comité attempted to raise half a million pesos (“La Campaña de Medio Millón”) for the repatriates to cultivate Mexico’s hinterlands in agricultural communities (“colonias”). However, the Comité’s promised delivery of farm equipment, tools, livestock and guaranteed wages came too slowly for the still destitute and starving repatriados who sometimes reacted with threats of violence against local and state officials. Cloaked in political rhetoric, the Comité failed to meet the expectations of the repatriate population and the Mexican public. The ambitious plans of the Comité became mired in confusion and scandal. Finally, bowing to pressure from Mexican labor unions and the Mexican press, President Rodríguez dissolved the Comité on June 14, 1934.
In addition, this work addresses Mexican immigration settlement through the early 1930s, Mexican immigration theory, the administration of President Herbert Hoover and the conational exodus. The hardships faced by the repatriates are covered as well as unemployment issues, nativism, and U.S. immigration policies through the early years of the Great Depression. The conclusions reached confirm that the general Mexican public welcomed the Campaña de Medio Millón and the work initiated by the National Repatriation Committee. However, the negative publicity regarding the failure of the two principal resettlement colonies in Oaxaca and Guerrero convinced President Rodríguez to disband both the Comité and the Campaña de Medio Millón.
In addition, this work addresses Mexican immigration settlement through the early 1930s, Mexican immigration theory, the administration of President Herbert Hoover and the conational exodus. The hardships faced by the repatriates are covered as well as unemployment issues, nativism, and U.S. immigration policies through the early years of the Great Depression. The conclusions reached confirm that the general Mexican public welcomed the Campaña de Medio Millón and the work initiated by the National Repatriation Committee. However, the negative publicity regarding the failure of the two principal resettlement colonies in Oaxaca and Guerrero convinced President Rodríguez to disband both the Comité and the Campaña de Medio Millón.
ContributorsBridgewater, Devon (Author) / Avina, Alexander (Thesis advisor) / Longley, Rodney (Committee member) / Garcia, Matthew (Committee member) / Magaña, Lisa (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
At odds with the Axis powers in the Second World War, the American government
began the task of dealing with an influx of Europeans seeking refugee status stateside, even before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. American interest in the global situation, nevertheless, did not officially begin after the initial attack on the 7th of December. Before that date, the United States government had to address refugees seeking asylum from European countries. Often studied, German emigration to the United States at times took center stage in terms of the refugee situation after the Nazi regime enacted anti- Semitic legislation in Germany and its occupied nations, prior to the American declaration of war. France, however, had a crisis of its own after the Germans invaded in the summer of 1940, and the fall of France led to a large portion of France occupied by Germany and the formation of a new government in the non-occupied zone, the Vichy regime.
France had an extensive history of Jewish culture and citizenship culture prior to 1940, and xenophobia, especially common after the 1941 National Revolution in France, led to a “France for the French” mentality championed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chief of State of Vichy France. The need for the French Jewish population to seek emigration became a reality in the face of the collaborationist Vichy government and anti-Semitic statutes enacted in 1940 and 1941. French anti-Semitic policies and practices led many Jews to seek asylum in the United States, though American policy was divided between a small segment of government officials, politicians, individuals, and Jewish relief groups who wanted to aid European Jews, and a more powerful nativist faction, led by Breckenridge Long which did not support immigration. President Roosevelt, and the American government, fully aware of the situation of French Jews, did little concrete to aid their asylum in the United States.
began the task of dealing with an influx of Europeans seeking refugee status stateside, even before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. American interest in the global situation, nevertheless, did not officially begin after the initial attack on the 7th of December. Before that date, the United States government had to address refugees seeking asylum from European countries. Often studied, German emigration to the United States at times took center stage in terms of the refugee situation after the Nazi regime enacted anti- Semitic legislation in Germany and its occupied nations, prior to the American declaration of war. France, however, had a crisis of its own after the Germans invaded in the summer of 1940, and the fall of France led to a large portion of France occupied by Germany and the formation of a new government in the non-occupied zone, the Vichy regime.
France had an extensive history of Jewish culture and citizenship culture prior to 1940, and xenophobia, especially common after the 1941 National Revolution in France, led to a “France for the French” mentality championed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chief of State of Vichy France. The need for the French Jewish population to seek emigration became a reality in the face of the collaborationist Vichy government and anti-Semitic statutes enacted in 1940 and 1941. French anti-Semitic policies and practices led many Jews to seek asylum in the United States, though American policy was divided between a small segment of government officials, politicians, individuals, and Jewish relief groups who wanted to aid European Jews, and a more powerful nativist faction, led by Breckenridge Long which did not support immigration. President Roosevelt, and the American government, fully aware of the situation of French Jews, did little concrete to aid their asylum in the United States.
ContributorsPalumbo, Alex Paul (Author) / Fuchs, Rachel G. (Thesis director) / Simpson, Brooks (Committee member) / Cardoza, Thomas (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
This dissertation analyzes two regional systems of involuntary servitude (Indian captive slavery and Mexican debt peonage) over a period spanning roughly two centuries. Following a chronological framework, it examines the development of captive slavery in the Southwest beginning in the early 1700s and lasting through the mid-1800s, by which time debt peonage emerged as a secondary form of coerced servitude that augmented Indian slavery in order to meet increasing demand for labor. While both peonage and captive slavery had an indelible impact on cultural and social systems in the Southwest, this dissertation places those two labor systems within the context of North American slavery and sectional agitation during the antebellum period. The existence of debt bondage and Indian captivity in New Mexico had a significant impact on America's judicial and political institutions during the Reconstruction era.
Debt peonage and Indian slavery had a lasting influence on American politics during the period 1846 to 1867, forcing lawmakers to acknowledge the fact that slavery existed in many forms. Following the Civil War, legislators realized that the Thirteenth Amendment did not cast a wide enough net, because peonage and captive slavery were represented as voluntary in nature and remained commonplace throughout New Mexico. When Congress passed a measure in 1867 explicitly outlawing peonage and captive slavery in New Mexico, they implicitly acknowledged the shortcomings of the Thirteenth Amendment. The preexistence of peonage and Indian slavery in the Southwest inculcated a broader understanding of involuntary labor in post-Civil War America and helped to expand political and judicial philosophy regarding free labor. These two systems played a crucial role in America's transition from free to unfree labor in the mid-1800s and contributed to the judicial and political frameworks that undermined slavery.
Debt peonage and Indian slavery had a lasting influence on American politics during the period 1846 to 1867, forcing lawmakers to acknowledge the fact that slavery existed in many forms. Following the Civil War, legislators realized that the Thirteenth Amendment did not cast a wide enough net, because peonage and captive slavery were represented as voluntary in nature and remained commonplace throughout New Mexico. When Congress passed a measure in 1867 explicitly outlawing peonage and captive slavery in New Mexico, they implicitly acknowledged the shortcomings of the Thirteenth Amendment. The preexistence of peonage and Indian slavery in the Southwest inculcated a broader understanding of involuntary labor in post-Civil War America and helped to expand political and judicial philosophy regarding free labor. These two systems played a crucial role in America's transition from free to unfree labor in the mid-1800s and contributed to the judicial and political frameworks that undermined slavery.
ContributorsKiser, William S., 1986- (Author) / Fixico, Donald L. (Thesis advisor) / Simpson, Brooks (Committee member) / Schermerhorn, Calvin (Committee member) / Lockard, Joe (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Immigration, especially unauthorized immigration, is a timely and a hotly debated issue. One of the issues that continues to challenge policy makers is what kind relief should be granted to unauthorized immigrants who entered the country as children. A few solutions have been proposed, including the 2001 Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This bill provided a path to gaining permanent legal residence and eventually naturalization for these young immigrants. The bill failed to pass, but inspired a wave of similar legislation, to no avail. The issue remains. In 2012, however, the Obama Administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in which childhood immigrants could apply to defer any action to deport or expel them from the country. DACA enabled nearly 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, enroll in higher education, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation. However, on September 5th, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the gradual termination of the program. This decision was challenged in federal courts and heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2019. At the time of this study, a decision had yet to be made. This study provides an analysis of the DACA program, including the issues associated with its implementation. Furthermore, it examines the economic costs and benefits of revoking DACA and provides evidence of American public support for the program. Finally, it discusses the future implications of a Supreme Court decision, and the ways in which states and universities should respond. Future studies should examine deeper the human rights crisis created by the program’s termination. Ultimately, this study provides rationale for passing permanent legislation to significantly reform our immigration policy.
ContributorsWalker, Chloe Marie (Author) / Magaña, Lisa (Thesis director) / Diaz McConnell, Eileen (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
Description
On June 15, 2015, billionaire businessman and reality television star Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States. Just 511 days later, Mr. Trump’s candidacy would result in one of the most shocking defeats in American political history: by defeating Democratic heavyweight Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump became the 45th president of United States. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Trump made repeated promises to implement policies that would significantly reduce both legal and undocumented immigration to the United States. These proposals would eventually become federal policy.
During the first week of his presidency, President Trump signed three executive orders that would serve as the basis for three of his administration’s most prominent deterrent immigration policies: the “Trump Travel Bans,” sanctuary jurisdictions, and the construction of a southern border wall. While this paper describes the intended goals of each executive order, it also details the complementary policies utilized by the administration to deter both legal and undocumented immigration. Though these federal policies target different immigrant groups, they all attempt to deter some form of immigration. It is the goal of this paper to analyze whether or not the immigration policies of the Trump administration are actually effective in deterring multiple forms of immigration. To do this, this paper asks two main questions.
Each section of this paper addresses two questions when analyzing the goals of each policy. First, are the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration effective in reducing threats to national security and/or undocumented immigration? Next, this paper questions whether or not the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration are mostly symbolic in nature.
Finally, this paper includes a future policies section which predicts future immigration policies President Trump may decide to undertake. This section bases these hypotheses on the three policies detailed within this paper and their results when compared to their intended goals. Finally, this section takes into account the symbolic nature of the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration.
During the first week of his presidency, President Trump signed three executive orders that would serve as the basis for three of his administration’s most prominent deterrent immigration policies: the “Trump Travel Bans,” sanctuary jurisdictions, and the construction of a southern border wall. While this paper describes the intended goals of each executive order, it also details the complementary policies utilized by the administration to deter both legal and undocumented immigration. Though these federal policies target different immigrant groups, they all attempt to deter some form of immigration. It is the goal of this paper to analyze whether or not the immigration policies of the Trump administration are actually effective in deterring multiple forms of immigration. To do this, this paper asks two main questions.
Each section of this paper addresses two questions when analyzing the goals of each policy. First, are the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration effective in reducing threats to national security and/or undocumented immigration? Next, this paper questions whether or not the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration are mostly symbolic in nature.
Finally, this paper includes a future policies section which predicts future immigration policies President Trump may decide to undertake. This section bases these hypotheses on the three policies detailed within this paper and their results when compared to their intended goals. Finally, this section takes into account the symbolic nature of the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration.
ContributorsHouser, Chase (Author) / Magaña, Lisa (Thesis director) / Karwat, Darshan (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05