Immigration Laws 

Introduction

​

A significant factor and obstacle for many interracial couples’ relationships and marriages in the US is immigration policy. Immigrants of European descent were the main groups moving to the US before 1965, and this is mostly due to US immigration laws limiting or excluding specific non-European nationalities. Many of these laws fit in line with the overall policy of preventing interracial marriages, such as the anti-miscegenation laws present before 1967. Although laws prohibiting interracial marriages were abolished in the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, historical immigration policy still created an aura of hostility towards interracial marriages. Despite immigration laws being changed in 1965 to end the nationality quota system that was established in 1924, there are many more ambiguous categories of injustice within the past fifty to sixty years. 

​

This article covers immigration laws that cause some of those instances, and discusses the negative emotional effects of those that have experienced or are currently experiencing obstacles that prevent them from being with their partners due to immigration policies. More attention and research should be given to these people’s experiences, in the hopes of creating fairer laws and options for people in these situations.

 

​

Part I: Changes in Immigration Laws 

​

Before the 1965 U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, there were many laws that excluded or greatly limited the number of US immigrants from different nations. One of these laws included the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was the first immigration law that prohibited immigrants because of their nationality. This law was implemented not only to stop Chinese laborers from entering, but also to specifically limit Chinese women from entering in order to prevent the emergence of Chinese families and Chinese culture in America (Constable 178). A law that specifically affected marriage was the 1922 Cable Act, which “stipulated that “female U.S. citizens who married aliens ineligible to citizenship would lose their own citizenship,” which meant that Chinese women who were citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States lost their citizenship if they married Chinese immigrants” (Constable 178). An immigration law similar in nature to the Chinese Exclusion Act was the Immigration Act (or National Origins Act) of 1924, which excluded the Japanese and other Asians from immigration, especially women, while the law only decreased the quota of European nationalities such as those of Ireland, Italy, and Poland (Constable 178). Laws such as these help explain why interracial marriages involving non-European immigrant partners were low in the early 20th century.

​

Chinese and Filipino immigration to the United States increased greatly after the Second World War. This was because these nationalities helped the Allied powers during the war, which led to the US ending Chinese exclusion immigration laws by 1943 (Constable 182). Another law that followed in similar suit was the 1946 Luce-Celler Bill, that “permitted the entry of one hundred Filipinos a year (not including those in the military) and granted Filipinos the right of naturalization” (Constable 182). Constable, author of Romance on a Global Stage: Pen Pals, Virtual Ethnography, and Mail Order Marriages, finds that “gendered patterns of immigration changed significantly, more closely approaching the current pattern of Asian-U.S. marriages” after World War II, stating that between 1946-1965, the majority of Asian immigrant women were married to non-Asian men of the US military, as part of the non-quota category (182). Despite these changes, the majority of US immigrants were still European, until after the 1965 U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. Constable stated that by 1985, “about 40 percent of legal immigration came from Asia, with the Philippines the largest source, constituting nearly a fourth of the Asian immigrants,” and that “at the turn of the twenty-first century, Mexicans remain the single largest group of immigrants to the United States, followed by Filipinos and Chinese” (183). Having an understanding of the nation’s past laws and immigration trends is important, as it allows for discussions on the emotional effects immigration policy has on various interracial/non-white, international couples.

 

​

Part II: Emotional Effects on Interracial and Immigrant Marriages/Couples

​

After 1965, there were more marriage and couple laws for immigration. Some laws helped, while others increased the obstacles in order to become legally married and gain citizenship. One immigration law that seemed helpful was that one could petition for a fiancé(e) (instead of a spouse) to become a US citizen from the year 1970 (Constable 185). According to Constable, “Between 1971 and 1997, spouses constituted 20 to 30 percent of all immigrants” (185). However, there were other laws such as the 1986 Immigration and Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA), Immigration Act of 1990, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, that Constable found may have been gender-biased against women if they were the immigrant spouse (186). On top of these stresses, there’s the general anxiety of having one’s papers and/or status rejected, and the uncertainty of how long couples have to wait in order to be together in person.

 

April M. Schueths wrote a chapter for the book Living Together, Living Apart: Mixed-Status Families and US Immigration Policy, called “Life and Love Outside the Citizenship Binary: The Lived Experiences of Mixed-Status Couples in the United States,” which also addresses problems concerning marriage obstacles in immigrant and interracial couples (Romero, et al). Constable talked with people about how long it took for their spouses to immigrate to the US, and the quickest example she found was about four months, while others varied to be over half a year (191-193). The examples Schueths discusses, however, are people who do not fit perfectly into one of the two categories of citizen or non-citizen. Schueths argues that we should consider more nuanced situations that couples find themselves in (Romero, et al 23). Schueths had interviews with “mixed-couples,” couples that had one US citizen and a foreign partner that either eventually became a citizen or is not one yet. She interviewed 39 partners of 20 couples, mostly of undocumented men married to white US women, in which “ninety percent of the couples in [her] sample self-identified as interracial, while 10 percent self-identified as Mexican/Mexican or American/Hispanic” (Romero, et al 25-26). Schueths’s main argument shows that there are nuances between those that are US citizens and those who are not.

 

Schueths’s research shows how there are many situations that tend to only provide obstacles preventing rather than helping couples to be together. Some couples expected the immigration to go smoothly, only to find out that the government is placing a ten-year ban on  their partner from entering the US, due to crossing the border illegally as an adolescent, or due to government realization that the foreign partner lived undocumented for years ( Romero, et al 27-28). These stories show that for many undocumented people, they feel safter by avoiding the immigration process, as they would be risking the chance of deportation more than they currently are, and be forced to leave their partner (and in many cases their child(ren)) behind (Romero, et al 27-28). Schueths also points out that issues may arise outside of their immediate families. For the couples Schueths interviewed, which mostly involved one immigrant/undocumented partner from Mexico, she found that they would risk crossing borders to go for an important family event such as weddings, or to help their loved ones if they were elderly or sick (Romero, et al 28-29). These examples show how crossing a national border, a seemingly easy task for a documented citizen, can become complex for those who are not, despite their normal wishes to visit and care for family. 

 

Another point the author discusses is that for most, an extra layer of stress for these couples is due to the financial difficulties they face. This includes paying an attorney (who may overcharge) to double check the chances of being approved for immigration/citizenship, paying fines, or having one less source of income once a partner is deported, thus having to send money to each other across countries (from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US, depending on each couple’s situation) (Romero, et al 29-31). The author notes that she interviewed people who are of the middle class, which indicates that low-income families likely suffer more financial disadvantages (than the middle class) if they or their partners try to apply for residency or citizenship. (Romero, et al 34). Schueths also states that after one gains permanent residency, one is not necessarily worry-free, explaining how one of her interviewees felt: “although [Vanessa’s] husband, David, an Anglo citizen, would like her to pursue US citizenship, Vanessa* explains that she is fearful that working under a false Social Security number years ago could come back to haunt her” (Romero, et al 31). Schueths’ and Constable’s research reveals many nuanced issues that interracial and international couples face during their or their partner’s process to become documented residents and/or US citizens.

 

​

Conclusion

​

Progress has been made toward increased equality for different races and ethnicities in terms of legalizing interracial marriages and corresponding immigration policies that allow fiances and spouses to be together. However, there are many remaining stories of couples facing complex situations and challenges. Many people do not feel safe talking about their experiences for fear of them or their partners being deported. Other concerns and fears about the possible invalidation for residency or citizenship include the government finding a past illegal record, and  the financial and family hardships that may develop after one’s partner is deported. We, the creators of this site, were optimistic in our created hypothesis, and this article highlights some of the hidden downsides to what appears to be a progression toward social liberalism. As Constable and Schueths indicate in their own works of research, there is still plenty of work that remains undone in order to guarantee equality and fairness for interracial and international marriages.

​

*Vanessa’s nationality is not specified by Schueths. However, based on Schueths’ sample size of couples that contain mostly Mexican/Hispanic foreign partners, Vanessa is likely of Mexican/Hispanic heritage (Romero, et al 25-26).

​

​

​

Works Cited

​

Constable, Nicole. Romance on a Global Stage : Pen Pals, Virtual Ethnography,

and Mail Order Marriages,

University of California Press, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unlv/detail.action?docID=224231.

​

Romero, et al. Living Together, Living Apart: Mixed-Status Families and US

Immigration Policy. University of

Washington Press, 2015. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/lib/unlv/reader.action?docID=4305965.