MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401810206 · doi:10.5406/23300833.81.2.07

Bootlegged Aliens: Immigration Politics on America's Northern Border

2024· article· en· W4401810206 on OpenAlex
John J. Bukowczyk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish American Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPoliticsPolitical scienceEthnologyPolitical economyHistorySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban lore in Detroit has it that after immigration restriction in the 1920s, Polish immigrants slipped into Michigan across the Detroit River, which separates the city from Canada. During the heyday of Prohibition, restrictionists called the people who crossed the country's northern border in this way, and whose movements lent substance to these stories, “bootlegged aliens.” In her book by the same name, Ashley Johnson Bavery, associate professor of history at Eastern Michigan University, offers readers an account of American immigration policy as it affected—and, before that, created—“illegal immigrants,” as some (although not Bavery) would call them today. Along the way, Bavery graphically illustrates that it was not just the country's southern border that was permeable but the northern border as well, in particular highlighting cross-border migration along one portion of what Michiganders proudly refer to as America's “Third Coast.”Bootlegged Aliens examines the development of the immigration quota system of the 1920s and the way it created a class of inferior and undesirable “foreigners” and, at both the national and local level, “excluded them from the benefits of citizenship” (the latter, not particularly surprising since they were not “citizens”). The anti-foreign “employment practices and precedents established in this northern industrial borderland,” Bavery argues, “shaped national immigration policies” (p. 1). Immigration policy was crafted at the national level, but it was left to local immigration inspectors, social workers, and others to implement and thus work out how it would operate. Given Detroit's proximity to Windsor, Ontario, Canadian immigration policies, Bavery shows, also influenced American actions. Challenging customary narratives on the 1930s that saw the New Deal as a route toward immigrant incorporation, Bavery argues that “New Deal policies incited nativist backlash that linked ‘the foreigner’ to communism, union activism, and welfare cheating” (p. 6), although despite the author's rather strange choice of a verb, it was local business resistance to the New Deal, rather than the New Deal itself, which caused these assaults on reform. Unfortunately, imprecise writing, like the examples cited above, confuses the arguments of the book.Bavery elects a blended chronological and thematic organization scheme to develop these topics. The first three chapters discuss the operation of immigration quotas, border control (and the newly created Border Patrol), immigrant smuggling, the opposition of African Americans and the older immigrant groups to the eastern and southern Europeans, and the carving out of exceptions for Anglo-Canadian and British commuters within the border-control system. The fourth chapter looks at the New Deal and the rise of the Left in Detroit, and on the liberalization of government policies as they pertained to the foreign-born new arrivals. The last three chapters of the book examine the conservative backlash to these policies on the part of older immigrant groups and some elements of business and of organized labor, which pressured Roosevelt to pull back from an earlier liberal posture and, amid a growing anti-communism, unraveled New Deal protections of immigrants.The numerous photographs Bavery includes are an appealing feature of this book. Some readers may find other aspects annoying. Bavery mentions the “Delray region” of Detroit when she means section or area, a peculiar use of a word that itself has generated a large literature in American studies and the social sciences (p. 16). Elsewhere, “day laborers” are not the same as “commuters” (chap. 3); Halifax is in Nova Scotia, not Ontario (p. 152); and the name of the congressional committee was not the “House on Un-American Activities Committee” (the “on,” of course, being superfluous and incorrect; p. 193). Bavery also had some trouble with the spelling of eastern European surnames in this book (“Januszwieski” [Januszewski], p. 255n65; “Stanley Novak” [Nowak], p. 255n56 and p. 256n74; and “Mike Chaykoswki” [Chaykowski], p. 263n120), which apparently also challenged the skills of her University of Pennsylvania Press copyeditor. Would it be a stretch to suggest that these errors are also unintended evidence of the place—and social respect—still accorded to some white ethnics to this day?It is, though, what the author leaves un- or under-explored that presents the greater problem for this study. Bavery repeatedly asserts that native-born Americans discriminated against eastern and southern Europeans because of their “foreignness,” begging the question, What does she—and did they—mean by this term? Bavery neither asks nor explains. Her brief and gratuitous intervention in the whiteness debate—whether any European immigrants were ever considered non-white—serves only to reveal the limits of her expertise on the subject, as her assertion that “Europeans could live where they wanted” (p. 7) ignores a history of housing discrimination against the likes of Italians, Poles, and Jews. Bavery thereby seems to want to compare but also draw sharp distinction between this inchoate anti-foreignism directed against these “white” Europeans and the racism experienced by African Americans and immigrants of color in more recent decades. But the aim of the Allied Patriotic Societies in 1929, to “preserve the blood of the United States in its present proportions” (p. 72; italics added), was clearly a racialist formulation. And how is it that, as Bavery observes, that nativist “lobbies suggested that no matter how many generations these immigrants lived on American soil, they would never become full Americans” (p. 68)? This Bavery also does not say, but the answer can be only their putatively (inferior) race. While Bavery mentions the term “racism” a few times in passing while writing about immigrants in the twenties and thirties, she seems unaware of the literature on the racialization of eastern and southern Europeans and the racism that lay at the heart of anti-foreignism during this period, as it still does today, making the two eras more of a piece than not. It is race that knits together the various strands of “foreignism.”These criticisms are not meant to be wholly damning, as writing and publishing this book on a relatively understudied topic was an accomplishment. Bootlegged Aliens is an informative study that students, general readers, and scholars not already familiar with the topics it covers should find interesting and even enlightening.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it