See if you can guess the author of this quote: “The American Union feels itself to be a Nordic-German state and by no means an international porridge of peoples. This is revealed by its immigration quotas ... Scandinavians … then Englishmen and finally Germans have been accorded the largest contingent.”
Those words were written by Adolf Hitler in 1928, in praise of US immigration laws at the time. To be sure, references to Hitler should not be invoked lightly. For all the ugly things coming out of US President Donald Trump’s White House, not least his denigration of Haiti, El Salvador and African states as “shithole countries,” the US is still a long way from resembling Nazi Germany.
Trump is a knee-jerk authoritarian and a throwback to the old days of white supremacy in the US, but many more institutional checks would have to fail before he could bring about the end of US democracy.
Even with respect to immigration policy, there is a profound difference between the Trump administration’s mass deportations, however cruel and stupid, and mass murder.
Nonetheless, it has become increasingly clear that the 2016 US election installed an ignorant, racist president in the White House. Worse still, Trump’s statements in office hark back to a period in history when Hitler found inspiration in US immigration law.
Specifically, Hitler admired the US Immigration Act of 1924 — also known as the Johnson-Reed Act — which had erected openly racist barriers to immigration on the basis of a “national quota” system.
The law banned Arab and Asian immigration outright, and made immigration from Africa close to impossible. As Hitler noted, it also favored “Nordic-German” candidates for immigration and eventual US citizenship over Southern and Eastern Europeans, including Jews.
My own Jewish ancestors made it to Ellis Island in 1922, just under the wire.
It was this restrictive law that served as the legal basis for not accepting Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the years before the Holocaust.
The 1924 law is getting a lot of media attention in the wake of Trump’s suggestion that the US should take more immigrants from Norway (who are unlikely to immigrate), rather than places like Haiti.
However, it is hardly the only example of racist immigration policies in the US.
During the period of the so-called Yellow Peril in the late 19th century, the US enacted a raft of anti-Asian legislation, including an 1882 law banning immigration from China outright. All the way back in 1790, the US Congress revealed its racist outlook by offering naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person.”
Hitler, for his part, was not the first or only right-wing racist to find inspiration in these dark chapters of US history. By the time he came along, everyone on the European hard right was already well acquainted with the US model of race-based immigration barriers. After all, Theodor Fritsch, one of Europe’s most vile anti-Semites, had touted it decades earlier in his 1893 Handbook of the Jewish Question.
In Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf, he praised the US as “the one state” that was making progress toward becoming a racially healthy order, and when the Nazis came to power in the 1930s, Nazi lawyers carefully studied the US’ long history of policies to close its doors to non-whites.
Looking back, it is important to remember that it was not until the 1965 US Immigration and Nationality Act that the US began to separate itself from the worst aspects of its racist past.
As Trump’s presidency makes clear, that past has yet to be permanently overcome.
Trump’s recent vulgar remarks about immigration should prompt all Americans to remember that Hitler and his fellow Nazis were once big fans of the US. As we approach the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, his immigration policies should give pause to those taking comfort in the idea that US democracy has not yet been fatally undermined.
Whether or not US democracy will survive is not the standard by which to judge Trump’s presidency. After all, for white males at least, US democracy has always been alive and well, even when racist immigration laws were passed in 1790, in the late 19th century and in the 1920s.
The US’ history of democratically enacted racism is too sordid for people to be complacent about Trump’s recent comments and toxic immigration policies. Americans who love their country should feel sorrow when reading what Hitler said about it in 1928, and they should be dismayed to hear their president openly yearning for an immigration policy that would put Nordic people at the front of the line once again.
James Whitman is a professor of comparative and foreign law at Yale Law School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US