On a Temporary Basis The Emergence of Temporary Immigrant Categories in the United States, 1880s-1930s

‘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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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