Expert answer:Film Analysis-2page

Expert answer:I would really appreciate if you sent the job in the shortest time possible. For doing this paper you should first watch the film “No Country for Old Men”. then read the power points that I upload here from”Saldana_Portill’s reading”.Then use one of the class sources that I upload them , so choose one from these. then find a source from outside. Please cite clearly even cite the film by writing the minutes where you use it. Instructor is strict about pilgrims. Let me know if any question.
ngai__039_s__impossible_subjects_.ppt

indian_given__lus_fall_2017_.pptx

extra_cridet_amts.docx

torres_article_.docx

ethnicity__omni_and_winant.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Impossible Subjects
Ngai’s Project
“Impossible Subject sought to explain how formal immigration status (or lack thereof) and the
categories of restriction produced new racial knowledge and new ethno-racial identity
formations in the interwar period” (xxiv).
Show: “race and illegal status remain closely related” (2).
The book “charts the historical origins of the ‘illegal alien’ in American law and society and
the emergence of illegal immigration as the central problem in U.S. immigration policy in the
twentieth century” (3).
“Thus, at one level, this study is an attempt to address a gap in the historiography of American
immigration [1924-1965]. Although Americans long ago concluded that the national origins
quota system was an illiberal policy that blighted the nation’s democratic tradition, we still know
little about how that restriction actually worked, how the nation was racially and spatially
reimagined” (3).
“The task of this book, however, is not to resolve the foundation problem. Its more modest goal
is to detach sovereignty and its master, the nation-state, from their claims of transcendence
and to critique them as products of history” (12).
Argument
“Restriction not only marked a new regime in the nation’s
immigration policy; I argue that it was also deeply implicated
in the development of twentieth-century American ideas
and practices about citizenship, race, and the nation-state”
(3).
“[In addition to the Civil War] I argue that the 1920s was also
an extraordinary time when immigration policy realigned
and hardened racial categories in the law” (7).
Key Term: Sovereignty
“Nationalism’s absolute defense is sovereignty—the nation’s self-proclaimed, absolute right
to determine its own membership, a right believed to inhere in the nation-state’s very
existence, in its ‘right of self-preservation.’ The doctrine appeared in international law in the
18th century and explicitly in American immigration law in the late 19th century when the
Supreme Court established that the regulation of immigration was incident to the nation’s
control over foreign affairs and gave Congress plenary, or absolute, power of it” (11).
“The notion that migrants pose a potential threat of foreign invasion has become a familiar
provocation in nationalist discourses. But immigrants have always been but a small percentage
of the receiving country’s total population, never approaching anything that could be
considered an actual invasion. The association of immigration control with the state’s
authority to wage war reveals that sovereignty is not merely a claim to national rights but a
theory of power” (12).
“Chinese Exclusion [1917] was significant because it occasioned the U.S. Supreme Court to
articulate the principle that control over immigration was a matter of national sovereignty.
Believing immigration to be a potential form of “foreign aggression and encroachment,” the
court gave Congress absolute control over it as part of its authority over foreign relations. It
ruled that aliens enter and remain in the U.S. only with ‘the license, permission, and sufferance
of Congress’” (18).
Key Claim: Immigration Policy
“Immigration policy is constitutive of Americans’ understanding of
national membership and citizenship, drawing lines of inclusion and
exclusion that articulate a desired composition—imagined if not
necessarily realized—of the nation” (5).
“The exclusion of Chinese, and other Asians, and various classes of
undesirable aliens in the late 19th and early 20th century signaled the
beginnings of a legal edifice of restriction” (3).
Chinese Exclusion Act 1882
Immigration Act of 1917 (18)
Key Claim: 1924 Immigration Act
The 1924 act was the nation’s first comprehensive restriction
law. It established for the first time numerical limits on
immigration and a global racial and national hierarchy that
favored some immigrants over others. The regime of
immigration restriction remapped the nation in two
important ways:
1) It drew a new ethnic and racial map based on new
categories and hierarchies of difference.
2) It articulated a new sense of territoriality, which was
marked by unprecedented awareness and state
surveillance of the nation’s contiguous land borders. (3)
Key Claim: Illegal Aliens are “Impossible Subjects”
“Even if immigrants face obstacles along the way, it is believed that these obstacles are
eventually overcome; Americans consider the path to full inclusion normative and
evidence of the nation’s democratic nature. In contrast, Impossible Subjects points out
that illegal immigrants are a caste group that is categorically excluded from the
national community” (xxiii).
“Immigration restriction produced the illegal alien as a new legal and political
subject, whose inclusion within the nation was simultaneously a social reality and a
legal impossibility—a subject barred from citizenship without rights. Moreover, the
need of state authorities to identify and distinguish between citizens, lawfully
resident immigrants, and illegal aliens posed enforcement, political, and
constitutional problems for the modern state” (4-5).
Key Term: Alien Citizen
Alien Citizens –“persons who are American citizens by virtue of their
birth in the United States but who are presumed to be foreign by the
mainstream of American culture and, at times, by the state” (2).
“Thus, unlike Euro-Americans, whose ethnic and racial identities
became uncoupled during the 1920s, Asians’ and Mexicans’ ethnic and
racial identities remained conjoined. The legal racialization of these
ethnic groups’ national origin cast them as permanently foreign born
and unassimilable to the nation. I argue that these racial formations
produced ‘alien citizens’—Asian Americans and Mexican Americans
born in the U.S. with formal U.S. citizenship but who remained alien in
the eyes of the nation” (7-8).
Key Terms: Juridical & non-juridical citizenship
“Ethno-racial minority groups pursue social inclusion, making claims of belonging and
engaging with society, irrespective of formal status. Latino studies scholar William
Flores and Rena Benmayor, for example, argue that the mobilization of ‘cultural
citizenship’ by subordinate ethnic groups is ‘redressive’ [sets right] and
contributes to a multicultural society.
“For Rosaldo, cultural citizenship ‘refers to the right to be different (in terms of race,
ethnicity, or native language) with respect to the norms of the dominant national
community, without compromising one’s right to belong, in the sense of
participating in the nation-state’s democratic processes’” ( Lazar 2013, 10).
From another angle, a nonjuridical concept of membership suggests the production of
collectivities that are not national but transnational, sited in borderlands and in
diaspora. The liabilities of illegal alienage and alien citizenship may thus be at least
partially offset through individual and collective agency, within and across national
borders”(3).
Immigration Act of 1924—Driving Factors
1) Post WWI wartime nationalism, specifically a “feverish sentiment
against presumably disloyal ‘hyphenated Americans’ (19).
2) “The country [manufacturing/industrial capitalism had matured]
simply no longer needed the same levels of mass immigration”
[agricultural workers were needed] (19)
3) “The international system that emerged with WWI gave primacy to
the territorial integrity of the nation-state, which raised the
border between nations [e.g. passport and visa requirements]” (19).
Immigration Act of 1924—Components
1) “restricted immigration to 155,000 a year, established temporary
quotas based on 2 percent of the foreign-born population in 1890,
and mandated the secretaries of labor, state, and commerce to
determine quotas on the basis of national origins by 1927” (23).
2) “excluded from immigration all persons ineligible to citizenship, a
euphemism for Japanese exclusion” (23).
3) “placed no numerical restrictions on immigration from countries of
the Western Hemisphere, in deference to the need for labor in
southwestern agriculture and American diplomatic and trade
interests with Canada and Mexico” (23).
National Origins Quota System–Data
“Before the Quota Board could address the data (or lack of it), it had to conceptualize the categories that
comprised the national origins quota system. ‘National origin,’ ‘native stock,’ ‘nationality,’ and
other categories were not natural units of classification; they were constructed according to certain
social values and political judgments. For example, ‘native stock’ did not refer to persons born in the
United States but to persons who descended from the white population of the United States at the
time of the nation’s founding. The board defined the ‘immigrant stock’ population as all persons who
entered the United States after 1790 and their progeny” (26).
“The law defined ‘nationality,’ the central concept of the quota system, according to country of birth.
Although the statue made no explicit reference to race, race entered the calculus and subverted the
concept of nationality in myriad ways. Ironically, nationality did not mean ‘country of birth’ as far as
defining the American nationality was concerned. The law excluded nonwhite people residing in the
United States in 1920 from the population universe governing the quotas. The law stipulated that
‘inhabitants in continental United States in 1920’ does not include:
1) Immigrants from the [Western Hemisphere] or their descendants
2) Aliens ineligible for citizenship or their descendants
3) Descendants of slave immigrants
4) Descendants of the American aborigines
“To the extent that the ‘inhabitants of the continental United States in 1920’ constituted a legal
representation of the American nation, the law excised all nonwhite, non-European peoples from that
vision, erasing them from the American nationality” (26).
National Origins Quota System—Link to Census
“Few, if any, doubted the Census Bureau’s categories of race as anything
other than objective divisions of an objective reality, even though the
census’s racial categories were far from static. [ . . . ] Census data carried
the weight of official statistics: its power lay in its formalization of racial
categories. The census gave the quotas an imprimatur that was nearly
unimpeachable and was invoked with remarkable authority [ . . . ]” (27
and 29).
[Quoting Margo Anderson] “the classifications created for defining
urban and rural populations, social and economic classes, and racial
groups created a vocabulary for public discourse on the great social
changes taking place in America at the time—industrialization, urban
growth, and, of course, immigration” (30, see also 31).
National Origins Quota System—Fundamental Problem
“While the national origins quota system intended principally to restrict immigration from
southern and eastern Europe and used the notion of national origins to justify discrimination
against immigrations from those nations, it did more than divide Europe. It also divided
Europe from the non-European world. It defined the world formally in terms of country of
nationality but also in terms of race. The quota system distinguished persons of the
‘colored races’ from ‘white’ persons from ‘white’ countries” (27).
“Thus the national origins quota system proceeded from the conviction that the American
nation was, and should remain, a white nation descending from Europe. If Congress did not
go so far as to sponsor race breeding, it did seek to transform immigration law into an
instrument of mass racial engineering” (27).
Fundamental Problem: “its methodology assumed that national identities were immutable and
transhistorical, passed down through generations without change” (33).
[Intended/Unintended?] Result: “Composite American” would be white. [ . . . ] Congress and
the Quota Board invented national origins that paradoxically upheld both the inviolate
nature of racial bloodlines and the amalgamation of the descendents of European
nationalities into a single white American race. Hill presciently imagined that one
consequence of restricting European immigration would be the evolution of white
Americans” (36-37).
National Origins Quota System—Effects
The national origins quota system [establishing temporary quotas based on 2% of the
foreign-born population in 1890, and mandated the secretaries of labor, state, and
commerce to determine quotas on the basis of national origins by 1927] involved a
complex and subtle process in which race and nationality disaggregated and
realigned in new and uneven ways” (24).
1) “The new immigration law differentiated Europeans according to nationality and
ranked them in a hierarchy of desirability” (24-25).
2) “The law constructed a white American race, in which persons of European descent
shared a common whiteness distinct from those deemed not to be white” (25).
“IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT WHITENESS, THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES
OF BOTH WHITE AND NONWHITE ACQUIRED SHARPER DEFINITION” (25).
Immigration Act of 1924: Nationalism and Race
“Taken together, these three components of the Immigration Act of
1924 constructed a vision of the American nation that embodied certain
hierarchies of race and nationality. At its core, the law served
contemporary prejudices among white Protestant Americans from
northern European backgrounds and their desire to maintain social
and political dominance. Those prejudices had informed the
restrictionist movement since the late nineteenth century. But the
nativism that impelled the passage of the act of 1924 articulated a new
kind of thinking, in which the cultural nationalism of the late nineteenth
century had transformed into a nationalism based on race” (23).
“Consensual Citizenship”
Takao Ozawa and Bhagat Sing Thind “argued their claims
based on the principle of consensual citizenship, but the
principle was always a double-edged sword, for the idea of a
social compact required consent by both the individual and
the community. It implied liberal, inclusive possibilities, but it
also justified racism and exclusion” (42).
Ascriptive citizenship:
“American citizenship in this instance was not
consensual, either in terms of traditional liberal
ideology or by individual assent. Rather, it indicated
Mexicans’ new status as a conquered population”(51).
Deportation Policy: Focus and Argument
“This chapter examines the advent of mass illegal immigration and deportation policy under the Immigration
Act of 1924” (57).
“It argues that numerical restriction created a new class of persons within the national body—illegal
aliens—whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal possibility. This contradiction
challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways:
1) the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation’s contiguous
land borders, which emphasis had not existed before” (57).
2) the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which
imagined deserving and undeserving illegal immigrants and, concomitantly, just and unjust deportations.
These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about social desirability, in particular with regard to
crime and sexual morality, and values that esteemed family preservation. Critics argued that deportation was
unjust in cases where it separated families or exacted other hardships that were out of proportion to the
offense committed. As a result, during the 1930s deportation policy became the object of legal reform to
allow administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation ‘made’ illegal
aliens, administrative discretion ‘unmade’ illegal aliens” (57) [e.g “Canadian pre-examination procedure” p.
87].
“The processes of territorial redefinition and administrative enforcement informed divergent paths of
immigrant racialization. Europeans and illegal alien, which facilitated their national and racial assimilation as
white American citizens. In contrast, Mexicans emerged as iconic aliens. Illegal status became constitutive of
a racialized Mexican identity and of Mexicans’ exclusion from the national community and polity” (58).
History of Deportation
“Legal provisions for the deportation of unwanted immigrants
existed in America since colonial times, the principle having been
derived from the English poor laws [removal of paupers]. [ . . . ]
The expense of transatlantic removal, however, meant that
deportations to Europe rarely took place, if at all” (58).
“The Alien and Sedition Laws (1798-1801) provided for the exclusion
and expulsion of aliens on political grounds. But Americans
quickly rejected the principle of political removal [ . . .] Unfettered
migration was crucial for the settlement and industrialization of
America, even if the laboring migrants themselves were not
always free” (58).
History of Deportation cont.
“It was not until 1891 that Congress authorized the deportation of
aliens who within one year of arrival became public charges from
causes existing prior to landing, at the expense of the steamship
company that originally brought them” (59).
The Immigration Act of 1917 added six excludable categories and
harsher sanctions, which included “appropriating funds for
enforcement the first time” (59).
The Act of 1924 “eliminated the statute of limitations on deportation on
nearly all forms of unlawful entry and provided for the deportation at
any time of any person entering after July 1, 1924, without valid visa
or without inspection” (60).
Mexican as the prototypical Illegal Alien
“It was ironic that Mexicans became so associated with illegal
immigration because, unlike Europeans, they were not
subject to numerical quotas and, unlike Asiatics, they were
not excluded as racially ineligible to citizenship. But as
numerical restriction assumed primacy in immigration policy,
its enforcement aspects—inspection procedures, deportation,
the Border Patrol, criminal prosecution, and irregular
categories of immigration—created many thousands of illegal
Mexican immigrants. The undocumented Mexican laborer
who crossed the border to work in the burgeoning industry
of commercial agriculture emerged as the prototypical
illegal alien”(71).
Ambiguity of Apprehension and Deportation
[January 1930] Members of the House immigration
committee expressed concern that the Border Patrol, which
was not a criminal law enforcement agency and had no
statutory authority to execute search warrants, had defined
its jurisdiction not just at the border but far into the
nation’s interior. If, as Hull said, ‘wherever [officers] find
an alien, they stop him,” how did the officers know the
difference between an alien and a citizen? Indeed, what
did it mean that Border Patrol officers could stop,
interrogate, and search without a warrant anyone,
anywhere, in the United States?” (56).
Argument: “imported colonialism”
The transnationalization of Mexican labor force [i.e. Bracero Program], “constituted a
kind of ‘imported colonialism’ that was a legacy of the 19th century American
conquest of Mexico’s northern territories. Modern, imported colonialism
produced new social relations based on the subordination of racialized foreign
bodies who working in the U.S. but who remained excluded from the polity by both
law and social custom. I do not mean to suggest a formal structure or model of
colonialism in the classical sense. Rather, imported colonialism is better described
as a de facto socio-legal condition embedded in the formally noncolonial
relat …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades