Entdecke mehr mit dem kostenlosen Probemonat
Mit Angebot hören
-
The Problem of Immigration in a Slaveholding Republic
- Policing Mobility in the Nineteenth-Century United States
- Gesprochen von: Bill Andrew Quinn
- Spieldauer: 10 Std. und 33 Min.
Artikel konnten nicht hinzugefügt werden
Der Titel konnte nicht zum Warenkorb hinzugefügt werden.
Der Titel konnte nicht zum Merkzettel hinzugefügt werden.
„Von Wunschzettel entfernen“ fehlgeschlagen.
„Podcast folgen“ fehlgeschlagen
„Podcast nicht mehr folgen“ fehlgeschlagen
2,95 €/Monat für 3 Monate
Für 21,95 € kaufen
Sie haben kein Standardzahlungsmittel hinterlegt
Es tut uns leid, das von Ihnen gewählte Produkt kann leider nicht mit dem gewählten Zahlungsmittel bestellt werden.
Inhaltsangabe
Today the United States considers immigration a federal matter. Yet, despite America's reputation as a "nation of immigrants," the Constitution is silent on the admission, exclusion, and expulsion of foreigners. Before the Civil War, the federal government played virtually no role in regulating immigration.
Offering an original interpretation of nineteenth-century America, The Problem of Immigration in a Slaveholding Republic argues that the existence, abolition, and legacies of slavery were central to the emergence of a national immigration policy. In the century after the American Revolution, states controlled mobility within and across their borders. Throughout the antebellum era, defenders of slavery feared that, if Congress gained control over immigration, it could also regulate the movement of free black people and the interstate slave trade. The Civil War and the abolition of slavery removed the political and constitutional obstacles to a national immigration policy. Admission remained the norm for Europeans, but Chinese laborers were excluded through techniques of registration, punishment, and deportation first used against free black people in the antebellum South. To justify these measures, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration authority was inherent in national sovereignty and required no constitutional justification.