Question 1: Throughout history, America has been excluding immigrants primarily based on race and country of origin through the practice of “Gatekeeping”. According to Ngai, Lee, and Luibheid, excluding immigrants based on race, national origin and sexual orientation through immigration laws were the norms for maintaining the social and political dominance of the white American population. Even in the Nationality Act of 1790, citizenship was only obtainable to “free white persons of good moral character”, which became the basis for many immigration policies today, excluding people of color (Ngai 2004 pg. 37). White America has been deeply rooted in ethnocentrism, which is predominant in immigration policies today. Before race became a factor
…show more content…
43). Nativists used the Chinese exclusion framework and rhetoric to deem Mexicans racially inferior and unassimilable (Lee 2002 pg. 46). Southern and Eastern Europeans were also deemed inferior, but they were “assimilable” and their citizenship was secured due to their “whiteness”, so they were never excluded like Asian people (Lee 2002 pg. 50-51). The passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act changed America and was the foundation for many immigration policies. The Act defined race in relation to other immigrant groups and determined which immigrants were desirable and assimilable. After the Chinese Exclusion Act, Gatekeeping, the act of denying entry to certain immigrants, became a widely used practice that is still used …show more content…
43). In “Looking Like a Lesbian: The Organization of Sexual Monitoring at the U.S.-Mexican Border”, Eithne Luibheid further argues that race and other components are intersected, such as sexual orientation. Luibheid presents cases in which immigrant women were deported based on the belief that they were lesbians. The Public Health Service in 1950 determined that exclusion of homosexual people was just, due to the provision that “aliens affected with psychopathic personality or a mental defect… is sufficiently broad to provide for the exclusion of homosexuals and sex perverts” (Luibheid 2007 pg. 107). There was a misconception that women could not have sex without a male penis, so discrimination of gender along with race and class were used to police women. If women looked masculine or if men looked feminine, they were at risk of being stopped and deported. According to Luibheid, identifying women who might be lesbian “was undoubtedly differentiated by race, nationality, class, and other features” (pg. 113). It is clear that race and class determine how gender and sexual orientation are maintained and sanctioned at the
43). Nativists used the Chinese exclusion framework and rhetoric to deem Mexicans racially inferior and unassimilable (Lee 2002 pg. 46). Southern and Eastern Europeans were also deemed inferior, but they were “assimilable” and their citizenship was secured due to their “whiteness”, so they were never excluded like Asian people (Lee 2002 pg. 50-51). The passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act changed America and was the foundation for many immigration policies. The Act defined race in relation to other immigrant groups and determined which immigrants were desirable and assimilable. After the Chinese Exclusion Act, Gatekeeping, the act of denying entry to certain immigrants, became a widely used practice that is still used …show more content…
43). In “Looking Like a Lesbian: The Organization of Sexual Monitoring at the U.S.-Mexican Border”, Eithne Luibheid further argues that race and other components are intersected, such as sexual orientation. Luibheid presents cases in which immigrant women were deported based on the belief that they were lesbians. The Public Health Service in 1950 determined that exclusion of homosexual people was just, due to the provision that “aliens affected with psychopathic personality or a mental defect… is sufficiently broad to provide for the exclusion of homosexuals and sex perverts” (Luibheid 2007 pg. 107). There was a misconception that women could not have sex without a male penis, so discrimination of gender along with race and class were used to police women. If women looked masculine or if men looked feminine, they were at risk of being stopped and deported. According to Luibheid, identifying women who might be lesbian “was undoubtedly differentiated by race, nationality, class, and other features” (pg. 113). It is clear that race and class determine how gender and sexual orientation are maintained and sanctioned at the