Abstract
Books of this caliber are few and far between. Moreover, it is rare to find a study that so deeply engages questions of the relationship between race, immigration policy, and form of government. In this truly path-breaking book, Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas, David Scott FitzGerald and David Cook-Martín meticulously document and analyze the immigration laws of 22 major countries in the Americas from 1790 to 2010. The authors’ rigorous comparative and multi-method approach, which includes close attention to socio-historic context and the domestic and global dimensions of policy making, has resulted in an unprecedented study. In the book, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín engage in a broad regional analysis to illustrate how immigration policies travel across national borders. Specifically, they explain how and why policies of overt immigrant selection based on race, ethnicity, and nationality became unpopular and were consequently dismantled across the region toward the latter half of the twentieth century. The authors diligently track the sequence of events associated with this regional policy shift, which began in Latin America and then spread to North America through policy diffusion. In a surprising twist, they reveal how the most liberal-democratic countries were the last to shed their racist immigration policies, challenging conventional wisdom that liberalism and racism cannot coexist.
FitzGerald and Cook-Martín complement their regional story with an in-depth qualitative analysis of six well-chosen case studies: the United States, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Each of these cases contributes a unique angle on understandings of policy diffusion and of the interaction between domestic and foreign politics. The case of the United States illustrates how the world’s longest-standing democracy promoted racially selective immigration policies for a longer period than other nations within the Americas. Ultimately, it was an investment in global relationships that pushed the United States toward the eradication of such policies. Canada represents the clearest case of how involvement with multilateral institutions can shape immigration selection policies. However, the Canadian case also illustrates how, in a democratic society, anti-immigrant citizen groups can shape national immigration policy. The Cuban story is one of policy diffusion directly influenced by the United States. It also exemplifies how state-sponsored anti-racist rhetoric can comfortably exist alongside practices of overt racism in immigration policy. The negative case of Mexico is particularly fascinating in that leaders implemented racially-restrictive immigration laws despite the country’s lack of success in attracting immigrants. The Brazilian case demonstrates the power of its national myth of racial democracy to contextualize debates over immigration policies. Finally, Argentina was faced with a unique demographic situation that resulted in a lack of racially discriminatory policies. The Argentine case also shows how racism among elites is not always a sufficient condition to stimulate the imposition of racist immigration policies, especially in the absence of popular groups who favor such policies. From these well-presented case studies, we see how international and national contexts interact to influence the formation of immigration policy.
Of the many noteworthy contributions that this book offers to scholarly knowledge of law, immigration, race, and political regimes, three stand out in particular: the methodological approach, the incorporation of domestic and geopolitical dimensions of policy making, and the examination of the relationship between racism and liberalism. Regarding methodology, this study is both innovative and massive. It would have been impossible for the authors to identify the underlying processes and mechanisms of policy diffusion (diplomatic leverage, cultural emulation, and strategic adjustment) without the inclusion of such an extensive list of cases, the examination of over two centuries of immigration laws (while paying attention to event sequencing), and the use of both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Using a mixed-methods approach, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín coded immigration laws for negative discrimination and positive preferences as represented in constitutions, statutes, published regulations of immigration and nationality, bilateral and multilateral treaties, and court cases. Recognizing the importance of de facto regulations, the authors also engaged in extensive archival research, analyzing legislative debates for the six case studies. Taken as a whole, the authors’ methodological approach placed them in the unique position of being able to develop a causal story about immigration policy change, identifying how and why racialized preferences in immigration laws traveled across time and space in the way they did. Prior studies may have failed to uncover the larger story presented in this book due to a reliance on a limited number of cases and/or historical periods.
Another major contribution of Culling the Masses is its incorporation of both the “vertical” (domestic) and “horizontal” (international) dimensions of policy making. Based on their multi-dimension analytic approach, the authors produce findings that challenge previous explanations for shifts in immigration law, as many of these explanations primarily focus on the role of domestic politics in shaping immigration policy, an unfortunate weakness of the immigration literature. In addition to addressing national and international dynamics, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín assess the relative strength of horizontal versus vertical pressures under various sets of conditions. They show how government leaders were most likely to curtail overtly exclusionary policies when such policies threatened their relationships with other countries. In contrast, vertical dynamics were more important in geopolitically weaker countries or when cross-class alliances formed in national political contexts that were receptive to popular demands. Labor unions, in particular, have historically shaped immigration policies in the direction of race-based exclusion. Although FitzGerald and Cook-Martín are clear that there is no “iron law” that governs the creation and recreation of immigration policies, they do conclude that “international politics remains the strongest ultimate guarantor against overt ethnic discrimination” (p. 33). Overall, the authors’ examination of how vertical and horizontal dynamics interact to affect policy development reveals important new insights.
In another major contribution to the literature, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín ask: What is the relationship between liberalism, democracy, and racism? Adopting a definition of classical liberalism that includes individual rights to “freedom of movement, exchange, and political participation” (p. 3), the authors conclude that “democratic input—whether in its liberal or populist variations—historically has been linked to racist immigration policy in the Americas” (p. 2). This assertion directly challenges common and normative perspectives that liberalism and racism are incompatible. That said, this finding is not new, as FitzGerald and Cook-Martín point out. They reference three major explanations in the standing literature for this coexistence. However, they find these perspectives inadequate because of their inability to explain important empirical realities and their failure to identify the conditions under which racism and liberalism coexist. In contrast, based on their research design and careful analysis, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín are able to convincingly show how and why “racial egalitarianism is especially fragile in democratic and populist political structures” (p. 334).
I was very intellectually moved by this book. It provoked many questions, reflections, and musings. One issue concerned the authors’ conceptualization of the terms “racism” and “anti-racism.” The argument that FitzGerald and Cook-Martín put forth is premised on the equation of anti-racism with the elimination of racially selective criteria in immigration policy. Moreover, they interpret their findings about racialized immigration laws to make claims about “racism” and “anti-racism” more generally. However, this invites a question: how representative are racially restrictive immigration policies of other forms of racism? Can we use an analysis of racialized immigration policy to make broad claims about the relationship between liberalism and racism, for example? Some of FitzGerald and Cook-Martín’s own findings suggest that racial discrimination in immigration policy is not necessarily illustrative of a county’s racial ideology or its legal treatment of domestic racial minorities. For example, they show how in countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba, national ideologies that emphasized racial inclusion within the national population comfortably coexisted with racially exclusive immigration laws. The authors interpret this coexistence as hypocrisy, but it may also indicate that people understand racially restrictive immigration policies and treatment of domestic groups in different ways. In other words, “racism” and “anti-racism” may mean something different when applied to foreigners versus nationals. If this is the case, racism towards foreigners and racism towards citizens should not be conceptually conflated, especially when the discussion involves societal norms which are, by definition, emic phenomena. On a related point, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín interpret the elimination of racially selective immigration policies as evidence of the establishment of an “anti-racist norm” across the region. However, as the authors themselves point out, the shift away from explicitly racist immigration policies did not always occur out of a commitment to anti-racism, but instead was a means to an end (e.g., to foster positive global relationships and to bolster a country’s international reputation). Given this, the degree to which such shifts can be characterized as “anti-racist” and conforming to an “anti-racist norm” is debatable and merits reflection.
Based on their analysis of race-specific immigration policies, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín make a rather dismal assertion regarding the relationship between liberalism and racism. They write, “When political institutions are structured such that public opinion can make its demands heard, the result is often bad for immigrants” (p. 19). One naturally wonders: where does this leave us? Are we to understand that the path to fair and inclusive immigration policy is the squelching of popular sentiment? If not, how are we to think about successful strategies for developing non-discriminatory immigration laws? Moreover, how do we reconcile the authors’ assertion about the relationship between popular demands and racist or otherwise restrictive immigration policies with the existence of cases of significant progress for immigrants and/or domestic racial minorities in liberal democracies as a result of popular mobilization? These questions bring us back to the aforementioned issue of whether or not the relationship between racism and liberalism operates similarly or differently when the target group is immigrants versus natives.
On a final point, in the conclusion, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín assess the question: Could overt ethnic discrimination return? They conclude that the possibility is not likely. While I agree, I think a more interesting and relevant question is: In what ways may racialized immigration policies manifest in the future? This question better reflects findings from the sociological literature on race demonstrating how contemporary forms of racism, directed at nationals and foreigners alike, have increasingly manifested in covert, slippery, sophisticated, and seemingly race-neutral forms. In conclusion, even taking the aforementioned observations and questions into account, FitzGerald and Cook-Martín have clearly raised the bar for this kind of research. Culling the Masses is an exceptional piece of work that will undoubtedly inspire new and important intellectual conversations for generations to come.