Even in the largest “city of immigrants” in the nation, anti-immigrant rhetoric is still rampant.
Blaming the migrants being bussed to New York has been a staple of Mayor Eric Adam’s rationale on budget cuts. The anxiety behind the rhetoric has loomed large even for liberal New Yorkers. And it’s been a motivating factor for the city’s supporters of former President Donald Trump, who recently promoted false claims that Haitian migrants are eating pets in Ohio.
With immigration a top issue for New Yorkers as they head to the polls in November, a museum exhibit sheds light on why xenophobia has so much staying power in the city.
Immigrant exclusion is as New York as immigrant inclusivity
Two centuries ago, New York became a gateway for European immigrants and soon a hotbed for anti-immigrant sentiment. This is the backdrop of “Nativists and Immigrants: ‘Beware of Foreign Influence’ 1830-1860,” an ongoing exhibit and part of a larger “Activist New York” exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York.
“The ‘Nativists and Immigrants’ section is just so fundamental to our thinking about New York City and its diversity and how immigrants have been treated in the city for centuries,” said Sarah Seidman, curator of social activism at the museum.
During the 19th-century wave of newcomers arriving in New York Harbor, groups like the Native American Democratic Association pushed to limit the rights of Irish and German Catholics and protect “American jobs.”
Sound familiar? Immigration experts say this political narrative of new immigrants taking jobs is still one of the most galvanizing in United States history.
It’s also cyclical. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was fueled by anti-immigrant activists portraying Chinese immigrants as a threat to American jobs. The exhibit portrays these tensions in New York through political cartoons published in magazines like Puck. Most feature stereotypical images, like Chinese immigrants kneeling or cowering before a menacing Irish-American figure.
“Nativists and Immigrants” also introduces two New York activists of the era: Samuel FB Morse and James Harper. Their names are as familiar as their creations: the Morse Code and electric telegraph, and a publishing empire, respectively. What’s lesser known is that these pioneers in mass communication were two of the most vocal critics of the newly arrived masses. They were New York nativists, blaming recent immigrants for poverty and crime in slums, not unlike they do today.
The crime narrative
This historical messaging still going strong in political campaigns can be described as: “the narrative that these immigrants are coming into our country to kill us, hurt us or rape women, that they’re gang members or that they’re crossing over with drugs,” said Dr. Shirley Leyro, associate professor of social sciences, human services and criminal justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Immigration experts like Leyro point to the minority threat perspective and conflict theory to help explain why linking migrants to crime is so effective. When a minority group gains some type of power and are seen as a threat to the majority group, they’re often vilified.
This vilification becomes the rationale for passing laws aimed at restricting their rights. Anti-immigrant activists in New York have historically sought to deny immigrants access to jobs, citizenship and the right to vote, and attempted to exclude them from basic services and certain spaces.
And the odds have been stacked against people who often lack the capital to fight back.
“When we talk about criminalizing the immigrant population, the weaponry is more severe — detention, deportation, or just having this looming status of deportability,” Leyro said. “The fact that we have been using police officers or people that look or dress like police officers to handle our immigrant population, that is a much more severe treatment of the immigrant population.”
Shifting attitudes on crime among Latinos
Polls say attitudes on immigration among immigrants and their children have shifted to more moderate stances in recent years.
Take, for instance, Latinos, the second-largest racial or ethnic group in the U.S. (and the city). Most (75%) see the rise in migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border as a major problem or crisis, and are critical of how the government has handled the situation, according to a Pew Research Center report published in March.
Many Latinos also support policies like adding immigration judges to speed up asylum cases, according to the report. But they’re split on measures like restricting asylum seekers’ temporary status or revving up deportations.
Latinos are pretty split down the middle on whether the situation at the border affects crime levels: 47% believe it leads to more crime, while another 47% say it has no impact, and 6% think it results in less crime, according to the Pew study.
Older Latinos (ages 50 and up) are more likely to see a link between migration and increased crime (59%) than those under 50 (42%). You can also see the divide by political affiliation: 72% of Latino Republicans believe it leads to more crime, compared to 33% of Latino Democrats. Among non-Latinos, 59% think the border situation is causing more crime, while 37% see little connection.
Crime and disorder
Why do disproven beliefs linking migrants and crime persist even among diaspora communities in New York?
First, there’s the universal reason: migration, regardless of the person’s origin or skill level, brings change that can be disruptive to communities, according to Van Tran, a professor of sociology and international migration studies at the City University of New York Graduate Center. People often resist change, especially when their familiar environment shifts. That includes encountering foreign languages or seeing street vendors in their neighborhood.
“When I walk down Main Street, I don’t see Italian shops anymore — I see Chinese characters,” Tran said. “When you see a sign you understand in Arabic or Chinese characters, you immediately say, ‘well, this is out of control.’ It comes back to perceptions of order and disorder.”
This reaction often lasts a generation before the newcomers or changes become part of the new established order, he says: “If I see a lot of people who are different from me, who I don’t understand, coming to my community, I have to feel a bit disoriented — that’s just a natural human reaction,” Tran said. “But in the long run, I’ll get to know them, [like] ‘oh, I see they are just really wonderful people.’ “
Then there are reasons specific to New York City: namely, what critics have seen as the mayor’s mishandling of resources during a boom in migrants. When Adams made unpopular cuts he blamed on steep spending to support migrants, it bred resentment from some New Yorkers, Tran says.
It also added to the feeling that migrants are burdening the social welfare system, he says. This is the claim “that they get benefits and do not contribute to taxes, and they do not become loyal Americans, [the narrative] that they don’t want to be Americans, they don’t want to speak English,” Tran said.
History lessons?
What lessons are drawn from a history of xenophobia? Not much, Tran says: “People forget very quickly, because the ebbs and flows of migration often have a lot to do with global politics and less to do with what we think domestically.”
After all, he says, U.S. migration policy is mostly reactive in response to global events, like admitting refugees from the former Soviet Union, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Tran contrasts it with Canada’s or Australia’s point-based systems that favor highly educated or skilled migrants.
“[Ours] is just a chaotic system of reacting to pressures externally,” Tran said. “So despite the fact that we have multiple moments like this in history, we don’t learn much at all … and a lot of the perceptions are devoid from facts, which is why there’s no way in which it can be justified.”
You can check out “Nativists and Immigrants” at 1220 Fifth Ave., Monday to Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on weekends from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., or connect with MCNY at @museumofcityny to learn more.
This is part of Epicenter NYC’s coverage of underrepresented communities and issues around the 2024 elections. Read more of our political stories here and check out our election site here.
