The New Wine Press vol 25 no 10 June 2017 | Page 9

often concentrated in some communities that are more
used to arrivals of new groups.
St. Cloud, Minnesota made national news last
September. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social
Services, among others, have long histories of assisting
refugees to settle in Minnesota, including Vietnamese
refugees in the 1970 s . St. Cloud, a regional center and
college town about 70 miles northwest of Minneapolis,
has a total population of around 65 to 70 thousand,
about 10% of whom are now Somali. A high percentage
of the town’s children and teens are of Somali heritage.
In an unfortunate incident, a knife-wielding attacker
stabbed 10 people in a shopping mall before being
shot and killed by an off-duty police officer. The young
man was a college student who appears to have been
“radicalized.” isis claimed credit. But is this a reason
to ban refugee settlement? Even before this, long-term
residents of St. Cloud have expressed concern about
rapid shifts in the city’s demographics. St. Cloud is a
poignant example of the changes and realities that lead
to the current wave of cultural anxiety.
In 1790, the Naturalization Act restricted the right
of immigrants to become U.S. citizens to “free white
persons.” What about U.S.-born children of non-white
immigrants? This issue was fought up to the Supreme
Court, and the answer was finally yes, U.S.-born
children of all immigrants were citizens. This decision
sadly confirmed that Asian immigrants, among others,
could never become U.S. citizens, although their U.S.-
born children were not denied citizenship.
The first major attempt to ban people based on
country of origin was the Chinese Exclusion Act of
1882. It was originally a “temporary” act that was made
permanent. The Immigration Act of 1891 added wide
classes of “excludable aliens” and established deporta-
tion procedures. In the 1900 s , immigration from Japan
was specifically prohibited.
Immigration from Europe dominated in the 1800 s
and the early 20 th century. Each new wave to hit the
East Coast ports and spread out to the Midwest came
under suspicion. Catholics especially were considered
unable or unwilling to “become Americans.” By the
1880 s , the majority of immigrants were coming from
southern and eastern Europe. That demographic shift,
along with political ferment in Europe, lead to in-
creased cultural anxiety. Around that time, the popula-
tion of the U.S. was over 14% non-U.S. born.
For the first time, quotas on immigrants and quo-
tas by country of origin were enacted in 1924. As a
consequence of this highly restrictive immigration law,
fully 84% of immigrants by 1960 were from Europe
and Canada. In 1965, an immigration law was passed
which removed the quotas of 1924. In 1986, another
major immigration reform law was passed. By 2013, the
percentage of immigrants from Europe and Canada
had dropped to 14%, while Asia and Latin America ac-
counted for about 78%, a dramatic shift.
The U.S. was reluctant to accept those fleeing from
expanding Nazi persecution in the late 1930 s . Very few
of the over 300,000 seeking visas to enter the U.S. suc-
ceeded. Anti-Semitism, fear of political ideologies, and
fear that refugees with relatives remaining in Germany
would be pressured into espionage kept people out.
Isolationist and pro-Nazi groups were effective in sow-
ing doubts.
After we could no longer turn away from the horrors
of the Holocaust, the U.S. reluctantly accepted refugees—
”displaced persons” as they were then called. At first, the
number of people we were willing to take was stingy in
the face of massive need. President Harry Truman led
efforts to overturn restrictive legislation. By 1952, the
U.S. had accepted almost 140,000 refugees from Europe,
including about 100,000 Jews. In the circumstances of the
Cold War, there was much more willingness to admit and
support refugees from communist countries, even from
Latin America and Viet Nam. However, non-white and
non-Christian refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia,
Syria, and places of strife have not been welcome, even
though community groups have offered support.
For a long time, the image of the “melting pot” held
sway. What, exactly, did this mean? The dominant im-
age implies that immigrants will assimilate or accultur-
ate, adopting the values, attitudes, and behaviors of
those already here. In a word, they should become like
us and look like us. A much less common understand-
ing of the “melting pot” allows for contributions from
newer immigrants and cultural changes.
Integration is an alternate vision that respects peo-
ple’s heritage, a both-and that would allow for people
to be bilingual and bicultural.
Islam and Catholic Christianity have a great deal in
common. Really? Yes, really! Perhaps the most impor-
tant is our shared understanding that there is a place
for religious values in public life. The role of family
is another shared value. We are both multi-cultural,
international faith communities. (One slightly humor-
ous note: Catholics, of all people, should understand a
continued on page 9
June 2017 • The New Wine Press • 7