By: Samuel Loyack
The structure and status of the United States today can be seen in many modes as a continued progression of colonial ideas and practices. One particular mode this can be examined through is of the immigration policies and stances the US has held and enacted throughout its history. A recent case this can be associated with is the Trump administration’s installment of a travel ban upon seven countries in 2017, and of the same administration’s proposition of constructing a border wall between the US and Mexico. In this essay, these cases are examined and critically analyzed through a postcolonial lens. Through this analysis, these cases become exemplary of the legacy of colonial ideas within US history. Parallels can be realized between the fundamental ideas that guided this administration’s policies and of the previous policies held by the US, and to ideologies stemming from colonial era Europe as well. The dynamic that exists within US immigration policies, the fundamental that guide them, and the technologies that uphold them are recursive in nature. This nature can be observed from the policies of recent administrations to the major policies enacted in the past. In drawing these connections to past cases such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, this recent case can be analyzed through postcolonial ideas of recursion, continuity and technologies of rule to identify this as a case of past colonialism existing in the current postcolonial US.
One of the first policies former president Donald Trump signed into effect during his tenure, was an executive order that effectively banned travel to the US from seven countries for ninety days. Referred to as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” executive order 13769, was signed as an act that would prohibit entry into the US from countries that displayed a threat to the US government and citizens. This executive order was also followed by a series of orders and proclamations that served to revise the initial act, as well as to put in place extra measures that restricted travel, increased vetting, and set in place additional guidelines that further restricted visa applications. The policies that followed the initial executive order were placed upon sixteen countries, including the seven initially cited in the original order (Trump 2017: 3).
Following the enactment, the travel bans and additional measures set in place became subject to considerable criticism. The countries cited in the original act included Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These countries were selected due to various reasons, including lack of compliance, insufficient documentation of emigration, and previous presence of terrorism (Gerstein et al. 2018: 1). Ultimately, this travel ban labeled immigrants from these countries as potentially threatening to the US. Interestingly, the Department of Homeland Security reported a total of 47 countries as posing a risk, as measured using the same factors used to select the countries effected by the travel ban (Trump 2017: 3). These guidelines and the specific peoples they effected would prove problematic in nature, as this suggests that the order subjectively selected countries for application of these new standards. Equally interesting, all of the effected countries were predominantly Muslim countries, further suggesting an element of discrimination on the basis of religion (Panduranga et al.: 1). In summary, this order served as yet another example of the US government imposing discriminatory restrictions upon the movements of people.
Another example in the history of US immigration policies this may be comparable to is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act is noted as being one of the first laws in the US to restrict immigration into the US on the basis of race. Similar to the Trump travel ban, this act served to restrict the immigration of Chinese migrants into the US for ten years. Additionally, this act was followed by multiple other policies that served to either revise or increase the restrictions and guidelines of the original law. These laws specifically hindering the immigration of Chinese peoples were not revoked until the 1940’s. Furthermore, while this act was not imposed to address foreign threats to the US that the Trump travel ban was designed to confront, it was founded upon a similar discriminatory foundation. The Chinese Exclusion Acts were enacted as a solution to economic competition, but were also largely influenced by the racist ideology of this period. Ratification of the act ultimately served to reinforce and amplify this racist ideology (Unite States Department of State: 1). The discriminatory foundation of both immigration policies enacted by the US can be attributed to the colonial ideas and practices that preceded this era, and serves as a prominent example of the recursivity of the colonial past, and the continued utilization of differences in the US today.
Examination of this case requires observation through a postcolonial lens, in which the structure and dynamic of the postcolonial world today is critically assessed as a reflection of colonialisms legacy. Through this lens, elements of the contemporary world can be understood as a consequence of colonialism, as the cultural, political, and economic status of the colonizing and colonized nations can be reviewed following each nation’s respective standing in the colonial era.
In the domain of postcolonial theory, anthropologist Ann Stoler refers to the idea of recursion as a means to analyze the colonial legacies. Stoler’s idea of recursion explores how colonial ideas continue to be experienced in new forms indicating no distinct finality to certain elements recognized in the colonial past. Stoler ultimately identifies this recursivity as “histories that fold back on themselves and, in that refolding, reveal new surfaces, and new planes” (Stoler 2016: 26).
In the case of the travel bans signed by Trump in 2017, the dynamic of implementing strict new immigration standards upon certain groups of people further elaborates the recursion of establishing differences for the sake of control. In this instance, control is being issued upon the movements of people. The use of difference as a means for cultivating control stems from the idea of colonial difference, an idea that is recognized by anthropologist Partha Chatterjee as essential to colonial governance (Chatterjee 1994: 32). Used for justifying colonial practices and establishing colonial governance, European colonialism developed distinctions between the colonizers and the colonized. These distinctions would evolve to encompass the separation and discriminations of people’s today, particularly in the US.
Through this lens, this case becomes exemplary of the recursivity of colonial history. Similar to colonial practices, the travel ban assigns these restrictions to a particular region through discriminatory measures. These measures are reflective of the colonial practices of the past, effectively establishing distinctions between groups to assert the notion that certain groups are not fit for specific liberties. The discriminatory aspects of this recent case present this parallel, however it also exhibits elements that differentiate this case from other comparisons to the past. With this modern travel ban, the establishment of these subjective immigration guidelines is founded to address alleged issues that are more relevant to the contemporary state of the US. Set in place to counter the threat of terrorism, this applies new standards to immigration into the US that reflect colonial ideas. Ultimately, the orders initiating the travel ban pose a case of the recursivity of colonial difference in US history. This dynamic is founded upon past principles of control through difference, while enacting these principles through a different mode of discrimination under a more novel purpose. Thus, this executive action presents a modern case of US histories refolding in the present in new forms.
Further examination of these executive orders and of other immigration legislation championed by Trump, reveals additional colonial continuities that have evolved and been imposed in the postcolonial US. The continuities can be observed in the development of walls and the use of quotas to govern colonial spaces. These processes can be recognized as colonial technologies of rule with roots that can be traced back to the colonial era and have persisted into the postcolonial.
Essential to the development of colonial authority and governance, colonial technologies of rule encompassed the variety of systems designed and implemented to control colonized people and spaces. These systems of control often resulted in establishing a hierarchy of difference between the colonial powers and the colonized that served to benefit the interests of the colonizers politically and economically. Both the construction of walls and borders, and the implementation of quota systems in the colonial era have served as colonial technologies of control for the purpose of regulating the movement of individuals in colonial territories.
The use of quotas as a tool for regulating the colonized can be seen in various instances of the colonial past. This technology served several interests of the colonial powers while exploiting and upholding their authority over the colonized. Economically, quotas were used to extract and regulate the economic potential of imports and exports of the colony (Colonial Tariffs and Quotas 2008: 97). Quotas were also used to maintain and govern the local populations. This system would manage the population movement within and emigration out of the colony. Utilization of this technology for both interests could be witnessed in West African colonies of Gambia and Nigeria. Implementation of quotas through this purpose can be observed within modern-day US immigration policy and within US policies that preceded it.
As discussed earlier, the Executive Order initiating the travel ban was followed and edited by a series of additional orders and proclamations. The acts that followed adjusted the original list of countries under the effect of the order. Nine of these eleven countries effected were predominantly Muslim. The revisions also included new measures that increased the vetting process and suspended certain visa applications from the countries cited (Trump 2017: 1). The effects to visa applications entailed the immediate suspension upon immigrant applications of those applying as family members to previous visa recipients. This change to the application process provides a glimpse at the differential treatment exercised upon certain groups within a process established as a non-discriminatory quota system. This system processes applicants on the basis of familial ties, value to the US workforce, and for refugee status. These guidelines effectively categorize the applicants, and each category is granted a percentage of the annual allocation of visas. The process in place today replaced the original quota system for immigration established by the Immigration Act of 1924. A system found to very discriminative as it significantly favored Western European applicants (United States Department of State: 1).
Both the current and past measures that have dictated immigration to the US can be viewed as an evolved form of the quota systems developed in the colonial era. The process enacted in 1924 presents strong parallels to the quotas that existed previously. Each system was founded upon inequitable guidelines that served discriminatory interests. The current system, however, is a more advanced model to that of its postcolonial and colonial predecessor. This model seeks to remove discrimination from the process and develop measures to help those in crisis, while still putting the economic interests of the US first. Nevertheless, the case presented by the previous administration’s leadership displays how leadership can jeopardize the integrity of the system. Regardless, this current case shares a structure to the colonial quotas used as a technology of control. This further establishes the recursive nature of the Trump immigration policies, and additionally provides insight to the continuities of colonial technologies of rule that exist in the present.
Another colonial technology of rule was the construction of walls and borders. Establishment of walls in the forms of fences, barricades, or property demarcation was common practice in the colonial area. Walls were effectively used to organize the structure of colonies and extend control over the local people, and have had a significant effect on territories in the postcolonial. Development of the physical and intangible walls in colonial territories permitted the colonial powers to pursue their economic interests, further cultivate the hierarchy of difference, and restrict the movement of the peoples inside and outside of the walls. The effect of walls and borders on the local populations was substantial. Colonial powers have established these enforced divisions through consideration of only their interests. This has resulted in cases like in Africa in which borders were drawn that authoritatively divided local populations (Heath 2010: 1). Complete displacement of indigenous populations has also been seen as a result. The latter effect was particularly evident as a result of the prominent use of wall building by European settlers in America.
Original settlers in North America utilized wall building to serve multiple colonial interests. One interests this technology of rule proved necessary for was the establishment of land ownership in these territories. North America was considered an unoccupied plot of land available for settlement. Settlers imposed this will on the land, ultimately structuring permanent settlements for settlers and the European colonial powers. Wall building proved critical for pushing the indigenous populations away from settlements as well (Philbrick 2006: 130). This interest and its effect were amplified as wall building and further incentivization of land ownership led to the expansion of settlements into distinct colonies, and further along developed the colonies into a new imperial nation. The construction of walls is deeply rooted in the colonial past of America as it critically served as a technology to impose authority and encourage European ideologies and expansion. In the present, this technology of rule still persists and was particularly evident among the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration.
During his presidential term, Trump led a notable campaign to begin construction of a substantial wall along the US-Mexico border. This wall was proposed as a solution to undocumented immigration at the border, an issue Trump centered his campaign around. After failure to pass legislature of this plan through Congress, in 2019, Trump exercised his authority over national emergency funds to initiate the project. This funding oversaw the construction of wall towering over 455 miles of the border (Trump White House 2021: 1). While significant progress was achieved, the project was not completed, as the more recently elected administration ended the project in 2021.
Analyzing this recent case and the use of walls or borders in the colonial past offer further insight into the historical recursion and continuities within the postcolonial US. Through a recursive lens, the use of walls as a technology of rule can be observed to refold into the present from the colonial past. This technology originally implemented to establish territory and the subsequent authority over peoples has evolved to address the issues upon the contemporary postcolonial. In this example, the Trump administration utilizes this colonial technology of rule to further impose authority over the movements people to a scale previously not observed.
In conclusion, multiple aspects of the Trump administration’s institutionalization of impositions upon immigration into the US can be observed and understood as a case of the colonial past existing in the colonial present. In this case, we observe the recursivity of banning travel on a discriminatory basis. Trump’s travel ban illuminates this recursivity as its parallels with prior colonial justifications is applied to the contemporary discussion of terrorist threats within immigration. This case also illuminates the continuities of technologies of power pivotal to the exitance of colonies and their authority. Examination unveils the influence these systems had over creating hierarchies of difference and promoting the interests of past and present authorities. Scrutinization of this case through a postcolonial lens ultimately brings attention to the recursion of this history, the colonial technologies of rule they utilize, and its reinforcement of the colonial will to amplify perceived differences under a notion of progress. By continuing to assess the world of the past and present, we can continue to uncover the incomplete narratives and persistent exploitative technologies from the colonial as we seek to decolonize these relationships.
Citations
Chatterjee, Partha. “Chapter Two. The Colonial State” In The Nation and Its Fragments:
Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, 14-34. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691201429-003
“Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration.
Colonial tariffs and quotas, The Round Table. (1937) 28:109, 92-
109, DOI: 10.1080/00358533708450906
E.O. 13769 of Jan 27, 2017
E.O. 13780 Mar 6, 2017
E.O. 13815 of Oct 24, 2017
Gerstein, Josh, and Jeremy C.F. Lin. “Why These 7 Countries Are Listed on Trump’s Travel Ban.” POLITICO. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-countries-map/.
“How the United States Immigration System Works.” American Immigration Council, April 11, 2022. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%2055%2C000%20visas%20are,in%20the%20previous%20five%20years.
“Immigration.” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/immigration/.
Panduranga, Harsha, Faiza Patel, and Michael Price. “Extreme Vetting and the Muslim Ban.”
Brennan Center for Justice, October 2, 2017. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-vetting-and-muslim-ban.
Philbrick, Nathaniel. Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War. Penguin Books, 2007.
Stoler, Ann Laura. Duress: Imperial Durabilities in Our Times. Durham: Duke University Press,
2016.
“The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act#:~:text=The%20Immigration%20Act%20of%201924%20limited%20the%20number%20of%20immigrants,of%20the%201890%20national%20census.