Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees during the Cold War

by Carl J. Bon Tempo

Unlike the 1930s, when the United States tragically failed to open its doors to Europeans fleeing Nazism, the country admitted over three million refugees during the Cold War. This dramatic reversal gave rise to intense political and cultural battles, pitting refugee advocates against determined opponents who at times successfully slowed admissions. The first comprehensive historical exploration of American refugee affairs from the midcentury to the present, Americans at the Gate explores the reasons behind the remarkable changes to American refugee policy, laws, and programs.


Carl Bon Tempo looks at the Hungarian, Cuban, and Indochinese refugee crises, and he examines major pieces of legislation, including the Refugee Relief Act and the 1980 Refugee Act. He argues that the American commitment to refugees in the post-1945 era occurred not just because of foreign policy imperatives during the Cold War, but also because of particular domestic developments within the United States such as the Red Scare, the Civil Rights Movement, the rise of the Right, and partisan electoral politics. Using a wide variety of sources and documents, Americans at the Gate considers policy and law developments in connection with the organization and administration of refugee programs.

Genres: History

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Katie katiek-is-booked · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans at the Gate, The United States and Refugees during the Cold War (2008) by Carl J. Bon Tempo reads as a political and legal history of refugee migration, communism and the United States rather than a social history. Throughout the book Bon Tempo provides readers definitions of what it meant to be a refugee, both legal definitions and that of public acceptance. During the 1950s, the term “refugee” was synonymous with “anticommunist”, with most Americans believing that by providing entry of refugees to the U.S. they would have a distinct advantage over the Soviets during the Cold War era. In short, anticommunism and welcoming of anticommunist refugees was proof to Americans that they were the more advanced nation. Every chapter throughout presents readers with the American public sentiment that consisted of anticommunist beliefs. We learn that throughout specific periods that sentiment included accommodating people fleeing from communism, while at times American society did not not want to accommodate refugees fleeing communism although it seems that during those periods race was also a factor albeit less highlighted in Bon Tempo’s work. By the end of the book, readers will find the resulting definition of refugee as far beyond communism, but to include “any person fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” (p. 203) as well as the inclusion of gender and gender-based violence and oppression.

A part of the history presented includes Presidential reactions and responses through public statements, executive orders, and pushes of Congress. While Franklin Deleano Roosevelt (FDR) was lukewarm to the plight of refugees, as Bon Tempo suggests, he also ordered the State Department to fully utilize the specific quotas for Germans and Austrians seeking refugee in the U.S., allowing for the individual selection of what were considered more desirable “political and intellectual” refugees. From there, FDR moved the Bureau of Immigration from the Labor Department to the Justice Department, signaling that immigration was to become a security and enforcement issue. Immediately following FDR was President Truman, who was more supportive of refugee programs, for both foreign policy reasons and political gain. It was Truman who seperated refugees from immigrant quotas, denying restrictionists power of refugee admissions for a time. President Eisenhower used the Cold War to ‘sell’ American citizens on refugee admissions, and that incoming refugees were already brave Americans and anticommunists rather than victims. It was Eisenhower that took advantage of the little known codicil in the Immigration and Nationalist Act, permitting parolee status as his administration admitted Hungarian refugees fleeing communism. At this point the Executive Branch began to reshape refugee policy in the U.S. and increased their own control in policymaking.
By 1965, Bon Tempo tells readers that liberals finally succeeded in destroying the national origins quota system. However, while immigration laws liberalized, refugee policies remained largely unchanged due to Cold War foreign policy concerns, as well as the rights-based movements of the 1960s, particularly the Civil Rights movement moving the needle on immigrant rights as well. Both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson supported the liberalization of immigration and refugee policies, but one thing Democrats and liberals could not agree on was to destroy and rebuild the current system, or to reform? While they never destroyed the system, they did admit 1.4 million immigrants between 1960 and 1964. Yet the Cold War was never far from immigrant and refugee politics and policy making, as readers see through Cuba.
When Bon Tempo introduces readers to refugee policies, more often than not refugees need sponsors and to be able to prove that they would not become a public charge. As Castro became more solidified in his position and communism in Cuba, the U.S. government moved towards launching comprehensive resettlement programs supporting refugees until they comfortably resettled with jobs and living arrangements. While Eisenhower spent minimal of the government budget on refugee resettlement leaving efforts primarily up to private agencies, Kennedy ordered the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to launch a resettlement programs for Cubans, the Cuban Refugee Program, spending over $200 million within a five-year period, versus Eisenhower’s $1 million dollar resettlement budget for 1960. When Bon Tempo released his book, the admission of over half a million Cubans in the 1960s was the largest and most sustained commitment in the post-World War II years, and to date that still remains true.

As Bon Tempo enters the 1970s, readers begin to find more of a push towards human rights rather than rescuing victims of communism - though communism is certainly still a motivator for Americans. While Soviet Jews escaped religious persecution to enter the U.S. the overarching theme in the 70s is the U.S. military and policy failure in Vietnam. As American withdraw from Saigon began many Americans working there recognized that Vietnamese who assisted or worked with Americans were at high risk of death or torture. As a result, many of those in and leaving Vietnam, as well as Vietnam veterans, began to advocate for their friends and allies who were being left behind. President Ford approved three broad categories for approval to seek refuge in the U.S. by Vietnamese, consisting of those who worked for American contractors or the government including Vietnamese leaders and their families, individuals with private interests such as family reunification, and a general category of refugees. No matter what category a refugee from Indochina came from, Bon Tempo makes it clear that they were still often considered as fleeing communism in addition to threats of violence and persecution. Once again we read about public relations campaigns that were necessary for the encouragement of acceptance of new Americans from Vietnam. As Bon Tempo moves from the 1970s into the 1980s, he centers his chapter on President Reagan’s policies, and indifference towards, immigration, making it clear that refugees and immigrants were viewed as cheap labor. However, due to Republican push and American public sentiment, the Refugee Act of 1980 began to shrink admission of refugees, not seeing numbers of acceptance rise again until the 1990s. It is here we begin to hear more about the southern border and refugees from Central America, as well as republicans creating a sense of fear among the American public to dissuade them from being welcoming of refugees. At least in the 1990s, refugee acceptance begins to rise again, only to be crippled by the events of 9/11 and the Bush administration’s lock down on refugee admissions due to American fears of terrorism and xenophobia.

I do have some disagreements with Bon Tempo. First, Bon Tempo states that the United States worked unilaterally to “solve a global program” (pg. 4) which was never the case throughout any refugee crisis described, as countries often urged or influenced U.S. government decisions, including the creation of partnerships and agreements between two or more nations. Our author also states that after the 1960s Americans “moved away from race” as an indicator of American identity, but no one in the BIPOC could agree with this as they have continued to be deliberately excluded and discouraged from participating in communities and even in American democracy. “Birther” conspiracies, that a person is not American because they are not white, are a good example of society continuing to associate race with American identity. Another statement the author makes in reference to the refugee crisis’ from the 1950s onward is quoting Eleanor Roosevelt and stating it was the “age of the uprooted man”. That specific statement ignores American slavery, reconstruction and desegregation, civil and global wars, genocide, forced indigenous displacement within U.S. borders as well as those outside of our country. In fact, a historian would be hard pressed to find a period of time where large-scale displacement was not taking place. Another point of ignorance in the text is when Bon Tempo states Hispanic and Latin communities joined the immigration movement in the 1970s and 80s, again ignoring movements in the early 1900s along the border for the allowance of immigration and workers rights.

Throughout Bon Tempo’s work he cites primarily white male authors and absolutely no historical work on migration by women, and as he is not inclusive in his sources, this suggests there may be inaccuracies by omission of those perspectives. Our author seems to downplay American involvement in Vietnam in the book when speaking of Vietnamese and Indochinese migration as refugees, and inaccurately states that they did not have groups strongly lobbying for them, nor any U.S. overarching foreign policy interests at stake. And throughout Americans at the Gate there is little to no mention of the intersection of gender throughout the entire book, and only some suggestions at the intersection of religion when discussing Soviet Jews seeking refuge and admission to the U.S. On page 126 traditional gender roles are on display as a selling point for social acceptance of refugees fleeing communism, and declaring their American ideals. But it isn’t until the epilogue that Bon Tempo acknowledges the impact of gender on refugee migration, but only in citing that persecution based on gender became a more prominent area in the 1990s and began to be accepted as reason for fleeing a nation.
Ultimately what Bon Tempo presents is that identity politics drove political decision making, even in terms of human rights. While our author seeks to “ground definitions of American identity in specific refugee policies and laws…” the central argument is that American government and public alike only accepted refugees under the guise of “rescuing” people from communism, and those who were anticommunist and pro-democracy making them in essence Americans before they even arrived.

[Emma Ronkainen · Rating 3 out of 5]

tenttikirja.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really this should be 2.5 stars, but since I don't have that option, I was generous.