Nativism Strikes Back: A Commentary on the Immigration Suspension

By Timothy Isaiah Cho

On April 22, 2020, following a tweet signaling that he would stop immigration into the United States, President Trump signed an official proclamation suspending certain permanent immigration categories for a period of sixty days.

What is striking about the proclamation is the fact that it is largely symbolic. The proclamation is not nearly as far-reaching as the president’s original tweet hinted at and exempts certain important categories, including spouses and children (under age 21) of US citizens and medical workers who are deemed as “essential” to combat the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the whole category of nonimmigrant visas (F-1, H-1B, L-1A/L-1B, etc.) is not affected . 

For several weeks already, US embassies and consulates around the world have already been closed for immigrant visa processing, so new permanent immigrant visa applicants have in effect been unable to enter the country.   

However, the proclamation potentially opens the door for further immigration suspension. Although set to expire in sixty days, the suspension can be prolonged if necessary and may even be expanded with a review of nonimmigrant visa programs. 

Ultimately, the proclamation represents a desire to “stimulate the United States economy and ensure the prioritization, hiring, and employment of United States workers.”

A Clear History of Nativism

This proclamation is consistent with the administration’s actions to pit “Americans” against immigrants, especially regarding the economy and employment. I use “Americans” in scare quotes because that term has historically been reserved for a demographic that has held power and sway in the country (e.g. white Americans). Other Americans, Asian Americans and African Americans, have always been relegated to a hyphenated and marginalized identity.    

Professor Hidetaka Hirota, author of Expelling the Poor: Atlantic Seaboard States and the Nineteenth-Century Origins of American Immigration Policy, notes that using economic burden as a case against immigrants has always been part and parcel of significant American immigration policies. Movements of nativism–-“America first” ideologies--were used to spawn “unsympathetic and hostile attitudes” toward immigrants, especially those who seemed to be unable to financially support themselves or threatened American jobs. According to Hirota, “our entire system of immigration control is rooted in nativism against the indigent Irish that goes back to the antebellum period.” 

What originated as state-level immigration control against poor Irish in the U.S. quickly paved the way for federal immigration policy driven by nativism. When Congress debated the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which restricted immigration on a federal level on the basis of race, Hirota explains:

…anti-Chinese politicians referred to existing state-level immigration control on the East Coast and claimed that Chinese exclusion would be ‘of the same class, in principle,’ with restriction against destitute Europeans.

Those of Asian descent were categorically excluded from immigrating into the country by the same arguments employed against Irish immigrants years before. At the same time, while naturalized citizenship was denied to Asian immigrants until the mid-twentieth century, this entitlement was afforded to Irish immigrants since the establishment of the U.S.

The False Foundation of Nativism

The underlying intention behind President Trump’s symbolic immigration suspension is clearly driven by nativism. In nativism, immigrants are a threat and a burden to the American economy and American jobs and workers. 

Nativism has likely been a major factor in the increase in anti-Asian racism in our country. To nativists, it doesn’t matter if you are first-, second-, or third-generation Asian American. As long as you don’t “look” American, you are an other. Your acceptance among nativists is conditional and can easily shift from “model minority” to “yellow peril” overnight. 

Yet, the most baffling matter about nativism is the fact that its fundamental claims are factually untrue. As Matthew Soerens and Jenny Yang have shown in Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate, undocumented immigrants alone contribute approximately $3.6 billion toward property taxes, $7 billion in sales and excise taxes, and $12 billion toward Social Security contributions on a yearly basis. Immigrants contribute significantly to wage growth amongst US workers as producers and consumers. Even Zoom, the video conferencing app used everywhere in the U.S. now, was designed by a Chinese immigrant. 

Of course, the value of immigrants is significantly higher than their economic or utilitarian benefit to our country. But the fundamental economic argument of nativism lies flat when confronted with basic facts. Nativism is based upon fears, myths, and conspiracies. One must dive headlong into fables to hold to a nativist ideology. 

A Christian Proclamation

In fundamental contrast to nativism is the center of Christianity. In the person and work of Jesus Christ is the most anti-nativist movement. The Son of God took on human flesh and called those deemed on the outside of religion to fellowship with God. The life of the early church was shaped by radically breaking barriers and changing the definition of who belonged. Under the supremacy of grace, those who thought they belonged didn’t, while those who could never imagine belonging now found a true home. 

The ethic of Jesus compels us to be driven by love and not fear––especially fear of mammon, or earthly wealth. In the eyes of God, people are worth infinitely more than they produce. And if we’re becoming more like the God-man, we’re given these new eyes as well. 

Our permanent citizenship in the kingdom of God relegates all our earthly citizenships. This doesn’t mean we can’t be proud of where we reside, but our pride cannot go against Jesus’ ethic of love of neighbor and of enemy. 

The church is not a holy huddle segmented away from a scary, dying world. Rather, she is an embassy of grace, a cup of blessing overflowing and pouring out for the sake of the world. Worship without justice and mercy is like gluttonously gorging on a feast intended for many. 

Nativism is entirely centripetal, center-seeking toward self. The gospel is entirely centrifugal, center-fleeing toward others. Therefore, a church cannot simply say it’s against nativism (and racism and xenophobia) while standing on the sidelines as nativism continues to operate in the world and the church. 

It is frighteningly possible to be functional nativists while being Christians. The good work of discipleship, true pastoring, and gracious accountability ensures that we practice what we preach rather than pursuing nativist actions and inactions. 

Praise God that the Christian proclamation is not largely symbolic at all. It is tangible, efficacious, and eternal because it is grounded in the resurrected God-man. We can proclaim him above every name and his truth above every falsity, especially as the forces of fear attempt to take root in people’s hearts. 

Lord, help us, we pray.  

---

Timothy Isaiah Cho is an editorial team member for AACC and the associate editor for Faithfully Magazine, a publication centering on Christian communities of color. He received a master of divinity from Westminster Seminary California and writes regularly on topics related to racial justice and equity, social justice, and Christian engagement in society. You can follow him on Twitter.