Natalia Molina’s How Race Is Made in America examines the development of racial categories in the United States from the 1924 Immigration Act to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, focusing on the development of racial perceptions of Mexicans. Molina argues that racialized groups were acted upon in accordance in “racial scripts,” which collated norms, expected behaviors, and stereotypes regarding racialized groups and legislated them accordingly—these racial scripts were countered by “counterscripts” utilized by the racialized groups in question, which often sought either to prove their fitness to the “whiteness” label or resist categorization altogether. Although focusing on Mexicans and their racialization, Molina emphasizes that racial projects were simultaneous in American historical development: while Mexicans were “falling” from whiteness, others were becoming white, etc. (6-11).
The 1924 Immigration Act, which introduced immigration quotas for those entering the United States from the Eastern Hemisphere, did not affect Mexican immigration in terms of legislation. This led to a questioning of the application of act, and a discursive shift in the American political landscape in the demographic shift in a greater proportion of Mexican (because of reduced immigration from everywhere else), the “spread” of Mexican immigrants throughout the country rather than just southwestern agricultural regions, and accompanied the intensification of stereotypes regarding Mexican immigrants into the United States (21). In the 19th century, the racialization of Mexicans was split between a recognition of their “white” Spaniard heritage and determining to what extent indigeneity had affected them, pursuant to 19th century understandings of hierarchical whiteness rather than the blanket whiteness seen from the mid-20th century onwards (24-28). National dialogue around Mexican immigration, notably lacking the participation of Mexicans themselves, centered around benevolent but exploitative depictions of them as “bird of passage,” cheap laborers for southwestern agriculture, and aggressive “invaders” rhetoric bolstered by eugenics and “racialization biological reasoning.” Mexicans were a racial danger, possible sources of miscegenation, and discourse framed the solutions as deportation or violent removal. Facing these challenges, middle-class Mexicans and their children deployed racial scripts in an attempt to assert and maintain the whiteness that was recognized in the 19th century (28-41).
The judicial nullification of Asian citizenship in the late 19th and early 20th century provided an opening for opponents of Mexican immigration to try and make them ineligible for citizenship (43-44). The 1922 Ozama and 1923 Thind court cases, which invalidated Asian-American citizenship, was used by anti-immigrationists to attack Mexicans, demonstrating the relational perception of Mexicans to Asians (49). Always a center for anti-Asian agitation, California groups like the California Joint Immigration Committee, the Native Sons of the Golden Way, and the American Legion made significant lobbying efforts to attack Mexican immigration (53-58). Attempts to create a Mexican immigration quota failed, despite a brief victory with the case of Timoteo Andrade declaring Mexicans ineligible for U.S. citizenship because of “Indian” blood (58-63). Post-1930, the Immigration and Naturalization Service pursued a policy of treating Mexicans as white and continued immigration (64-66). These efforts to restrict immigration also extended to efforts to restrict birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, as stereotypes about the fertility of Asian-Americans and Mexican women proliferated concerns about demographic “explosion.” Although these efforts failed, it succeeded in attaching Asians and Mexicans further to non-whiteness and created a national system of segregation beyond Jim Crow, particularly in the West (70-88).
During the 1940s, “medical racialization” was pursued as a method of Mexican exclusion, particularly used by generally pro-immigration agricultural organizations like the Associated Farmers of California’s Imperial Valley to restrict, punish, and prevent labor radicalism (93-108). Beyond destroying the basis for Mexican-American labor organization for decades, these efforts contributed to the “development of a medicalized racial profile that served to make Mexicans deportable,” particularly tarring them with allegation of syphilis and other transmittable disease (109). The 1950s, particularly in the execution of Operations Round-Up and Wetback, saw a groundswell of support for Mexican immigrants from left-liberal and holdover Popular Front organizations which sought to connect the shared histories of Black and Jewish Americans with the treatment of Mexican immigrants and their oftentimes citizen families. Although opposition did not stop the mass deportation, it reveals the interconnected nature of racialization by the American state in one of its most repressive actions of the 1950s (113-132).