The Schemas Shaping Naturalization Policy in the United States During its Passage through the Nineteenth Century
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”[1]
The Statue of Liberty famously proclaims that the United States (US) welcomes all to seek refuge at its door. Yet, immigration into the US is one of the most controversial topics today. At the beginning of its history, the US was progressive and unique — a place where naturalization was a choice and opportunities abounded.[2] There has since been a long history to the shaping of the policies that now govern how immigrants are accepted into this country. Although this process was previously far simpler, it unfortunately has never been unadulterated — selfish ambitions and ulterior motives have always impacted these laws. Upon researching my first immigrant ancestors from the Netherlands, I came upon a personal biography published in 1880 about my fourth-great-grandfather, Mathias Duven, in The History of Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin. This personal description included my ancestor’s political affiliation and it sparked my interest into learning more about how he had become a citizen and what had been the basis for the process that he navigated.[3] In my research, I learned that the US immigrant naturalization policy that developed throughout the 1800s was deeply ridden with corruption and injustice, due to its roots in civil ideologies, manipulative political strategies, and racial preferences towards Western Europeans, laying the groundwork for continual corruption in the naturalization system throughout the rest of history.
In the late 1700s, as a newly minted nation, the US had many challenges to address. They had gained victory and were an independent nation, but now needed to define what that meant. One deliberation concerned the meaning of being a citizen in this nation and the process of becoming one. Understanding the necessity of increasing population in order to maintain territory acquired through conditional treaties, the founding fathers enacted a naturalization policy on February 26, 1790.[4] It was a simple system in which immigrants could become naturalized upon going to any convenient court of record and swearing allegiance to the Constitution after having lived in the US for only two years.[5] The process was straightforward, a bit haphazard, and for the most part, highly unregulated by the Federal Government. Five years later, in 1795, amendments were made to include that candidates had to live in the United States for five years and “relinquish all allegiances to foreign sovereigns.”[6] This five year residency provision remained part of the policy through the nineteenth century, and was still in place when my first immigrant ancestors applied for citizenship. In his petition for admission to citizenship, Mathias Duven, stated, “I do absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty whatever, and particularly to The King of Holland of whom I was subject.”[7]
The broadly held cultural understanding of immigrants at this time profoundly impacted the nation’s understanding of being a citizen. This consequently was the basis for the naturalization policy at the time. As one of the first nations of its kind, the democracy that the founding fathers built was nearly a foreign concept to all involved. As a nation of transplants in a foreign land, the traditional views of citizenship being based on location of birth or long held allegiances could no longer apply. Instead, the founding fathers determined that their common unifying factor was found in the sentiments they all held concerning this democracy. They, therefore, determined that citizenship would be a matter of “belief, will, consent, and choice.” A common commitment to their republican values was needed.[8]
The system became very contractual; rights were granted on the condition of the individual “[supporting] republican principles, [adhering] to the Constitution, and [having] responsible and virtuous behavior.”[9] A firsthand example of this expectation is given in the petition for admission to citizenship document of Mathias Duven. His witnesses had to certify that he was “a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same” before he could be cleared for naturalization.[10] It was believed that assimilation of this sort was necessary for “developing character” and creating “cultural continuity” leading to unification of the nation.[11] The result is shared by Historian Brian W. Beltman in his reflection on the immigration story of E. J. G. Bloemendaal and his family from the Netherlands in the late 1800s. He mentions that, after immigrating, the Bloemendaals moved to a comfortable community where “ethnocultural homogeneity and shared socioeconomic standards and expectations were linked to the tradition of family farming and their Reformed religious precepts.”[12] The discriminatory immigration policies perpetuated these ethnocentric communities. Many believed the best way to create national unity was through “a prolonged term of residence.”[13] For this reason, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which was largely promoted by the Federalists, amended the naturalization policy to require fourteen years of residency before receiving citizenship.[14] Despite the idealistic view that the naturalization system would be able to ensure that all citizens fit American virtues, it was incredibly flawed in reality.
One factor leading to the dysfunction, was the underlying national dispute between opposing political parties. The two main contenders in this debate were the Federalist conservatives and the Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson. This argument is highlighted in a personal debate between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton between 1801 and 1802. In his first State of the Union address on December 7, 1801, Jefferson shared his opinion on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which had changed the residency requirement to fourteen years before immigrants could become citizens. Jefferson shared that he felt this was exorbitant as it prevented refugees, who had already demonstrated their commitment to the US by risking their lives and leaving all that was familiar to them, from entering the US. He understood the reason for having a time of residency to “develop character” before allowing people to hold offices but felt the fourteen year time period was excessive. Soon after, Hamilton came back with two written essays in response to Jefferson. He strongly criticized Jefferson not only because of their history as political opponents but also because Jefferson had changed his views. Around 1781, Jefferson had strongly “cautioned against ‘great importations of foreigners’” because of his fear of their foreign views and affiliations which could contaminate the US. His tune was quite different in 1801 when, as President, he called the nation to welcome immigrants willingly. Hamilton accused Jefferson of altering his stance solely because of the support he had received from naturalized immigrants allowing him to win the election. This exposure of inconsistency gives an example of some of the corruption occurring in the establishing of the naturalization policy. Many politicians had largely ulterior motives for promoting their particular positions.[15]
One of the main sentiments held by those who were strongly opposed to citizenship for immigrants was the feeling that they were too different from Americans and the vision for the United States.[16] This view was supported by Hamilton in his 1802 essays. He wrote, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”[17] These prejudices were very present from the beginning with the first congressional statute on naturalization extending it to “free white persons” alone. While the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the rights to all born in the US, no matter their race, there were still no provisions for those who were foreign born. This lack was accentuated by several exclusion acts throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, of which religion, especially Protestantism, and ethnicity was the greatest concern.[18]
Regardless of Hamilton’s criticism, Jefferson and his Republican supporters successfully revised the naturalization policy, returning its requirements to five years of residency prior to receiving citizenship. Additionally, their amendment included that immigrants would be required to submit a statement of intent prior to receiving their citizenship and that a registry of those who had received citizenship would be kept. While these were the minimum requirements, many less anxious to receive citizenship completed the process over a longer time frame. My own ancestor, Mathias Duven, arrived in the United States on July 10, 1846 and submitted his statement of intent shortly after on August 27, in the US District Court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. He then commenced to wait until April 22, 1856 before making his petition for admission to citizenship in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.[19] The Republican provisions governing the system that he navigated attempted to create a more standardized policy for the naturalization process, but for the most part, naturalization returned to being a fairly “unremarkable process.”[20]
Some still held onto the sentiment that there was a need for assimilation not only in expectations of conduct, but also in occupation. According to Historian Ronald Schultz, “The idea that agriculture was inherently virtuous and that the nature of farming made farmers themselves especially so” was key in society at that time. With a large majority of the population being farmers, this attitude of them as “loyal and productive citizens” was foundational across the country. This worked towards the benefit of immigrants in the early 1800s as nearly all were seeking land and a life in agriculture. In fact, in the 1820s, naturalization essentially became automatic. At that time, members of congress cared little about who was coming to settle in the US territory as their interests lay much stronger in populating their nation.[21] As Professor of History emeritus, Roger Daniels, observed, “They understood that they had a vast, largely unpopulated country and if they didn’t fill it up they would probably lose large parts of it.”[22] These immigrants were very beneficial, providing large amounts of federal revenue and fulfilling a “critical need” for the advancement of continental expansion. There was, therefore, little fear regarding these agrarian immigrants leading to extremely relaxed naturalization policies.[23] These policies set the foundation for the system that Mathias Duven would later navigate during his path to citizenship as an immigrant seeking an agrarian life.[24]
This model for immigration faced drastic changes with the rise of the Industrial Revolution beginning in 1848. The number of immigrants seeking laborer jobs rose by twenty percent and an increasing number of them settled in large cities, not open territory.[25] These incoming laborers gathered in ethnic ghettos in cities and worked in jobs that were viewed as the lowest and most undesirable. US citizens feared them due to numerous prejudices and negative beliefs because they “did not fit into the land and naturalization mold.”[26] As Schultz noted, “In American eyes, there was nothing in their work or way of life that was naturally virtuous.”[27] The assumption that immigrants are virtuous due to agricultural ties was no longer present. People instead viewed immigrants as a threat, feeling they would never be able to assimilate to the American identity. Many also feared that they would become a burden to society and the economy. Industrial immigrants went against the nation’s ideals of being a homogeneous population and broke down their definition of citizenship as an acceptance of common morals and behaviors. Motivated by their fear, many leaders wanted to close the nation off to any further diversity in order to perpetuate their comfortable state of uniformity created through discrimination.[28]
One group that held onto these negative views of urban immigrants especially strongly were the nativists. Born in the 1840s, nativism opposed the immigration of those with different races, religions, ethnicities, and nationalities.[29] One group especially targeted were Irish laborers. As Schultz notes, there was “widespread American racism and Anglo-Saxon prejudice that ‘racialized’ the Irish as non-whites and treated them as inferior and unfit for full citizenship.”[30] The nativists sought to make the naturalization process more difficult for immigrants like these. In July of 1845, the Native American national convention met in Philadelphia and came to the proposal that nationalization laws should require twenty one years of residency prior to being eligible for citizenship.[31] The motivation behind this excessive requirement was that they saw it as a way to neutralize the threat these immigrants posed to the population. They suggested having two types of citizenship: one for immigrants and one for those born on native soil.[32] They also held that no immigrant should be able to vote or hold office in the US. While there was an apparent lack of order and need for change in the system, this was not the reform that non-nativists were looking for and their proposition failed to move forward.[33]
An additional factor leading to corruption was the breakdown between the control of the Federal and State Governments. This balance of centralization was delicate in the early years of the United States’ history. Citizenship was just one of the things that each fought for control over. Both tried to use the ambiguous language of the policy to argue for their control on the issue. In 1849, the Passenger Cases decided the dispute by proclaiming it illegal for states to regulate immigration. In their interpretation, immigrants fell into the category of commerce, which was under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction.[34] Despite the Federal Government’s claim to have control over naturalization, they did little to direct or oversee any part of the system. Instead, the processing of citizenship was handed over to more than 4500 independent courts with no standardization.[35] This only further contributed to the abuses of the system.
With the rise of civil conflict in the US in the 1860s, the concern over immigration quickly subsided. All attentions were turned to the war and “the anti-immigrant agitation became, for a time, insignificant.” Those who previously held strongly to nativist views quickly set them aside and accepted immigrants from any ethnicity or occupation as welcomed reinforcements. The policy once again resumed its relaxed state which had been characteristic of the 1820s. This was emphasized with the passing of the Homestead Act in 1862 which allowed any male of eligible age who was in good standing with the US to receive a plot of land, regardless of if he was a citizen or simply intended to become one. In fact, the policy was so encouraging of immigration that citizenship commonly went hand in hand with the ownership of the land. Both policies required five years of residence making it incredibly convenient for immigrants to apply for and receive both simultaneously.[36]
Naturalization continued largely independent from government management and remained under the radar for many years. There were numerous reports of ethnic tensions and violence, along with fraud, throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. However, the federal government determined that this was simply a result of the surge of labor immigrants and that the subsequent problems would pass. They continued to believe that the current model was adequate and made no movement towards change. Finally after years of knowledge of the abuses, the Attorney General’s Office commissioned a Special Examiner in 1902 to evaluate the naturalization process. C.V.C Van Deusen discovered abuse and a large amount of corrupt practices with partisan judges granting large numbers of citizenship papers to new immigrants very near elections. It was also discovered that “Naturalization businesses” had become a common practice in which politicians would pay new immigrants to become citizens if they would then vote in their favor in the election. Many other abuses including forged records, lack of adherence to the policy’s timelines, and others existed alongside this rampant corruption. The system run by ignorant administrators had “little if any coherence…[or]…uniformity from one locale to another.”[37]
My ancestors were highly unharmed by these discriminatory and incoherent policies. As immigrants from North Western Europe who were coming to the US to follow agricultural pursuits, they faced no prejudices in their path to immigrating or obtaining citizenship. As shared in the portion on Alto, Wisconsin in The History of Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin, where my first immigrant ancestors settled, these Dutch immigrants formed, “a very large thrifty and respectable portion of the inhabitants.”[38] My ancestors and their fellow countrymen were welcomed in as citizens of the US and becoming naturalized was of little concern to them. The immateriality of this process was shown in my inability to find a first hand account from a Dutch immigrant on their experiences. I can only assume that it was a simple and uneventful process because it was known that they, “[had] the characteristics of the Hollanders; [were] industrious and moral [citizens].”[39] Unfortunately this privilege was not true for many who faced great difficulty in obtaining this right.
The Immigration system of the US has remained corrupted throughout its history. This polluted system continues to have a profoundly negative effect on the lives of many seeking refuge in the land of opportunity today. My own family has experienced the complications of the system first hand with the immigration of my brother-in-law from Nicaragua. Spending countless hours over nearly a year’s time, my sister relentlessly worked to get him a visa so he could come to the US. It practically became her part time job as she researched and petitioned and labored through the complicated immigration process. Our story is just one of many that tell of the overwhelming challenges that the US naturalization policy forces on those seeking immigration. While it is impossible to undo the history of abuse in this area of our government, it is possible to move forward towards reformation of our nation’s policies. Through my journey in writing this paper I have come to a deeper appreciation for the journey that my ancestors made to a new world, but I have also found a much greater sympathy for those who are enduring the process today. I feel inspired to advocate for changes towards a more just system in hopes that one day the US may truly be able to live up to its identity as the golden door of refuge.
[1] Emma Lazarus, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1883, accessed April 10, 2019, www.nps.gov.
[2] Claire Prechtel-Kluskens, “The Location of Naturalization Records,” The Record 3, no. 2 (1996): 21–22
[3] Consul Willshire Butterfield, The History of Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin (Chicago: Western Historical Company, 1880), Google edition, 1057.
[4] Ronald Schultz, “‘Allegiance and Land Go Together’: Automatic Naturalization and the Changing Nature of Immigration in Nineteenth-Century America,” American Nineteenth Century History 12, no. 2 (2011): 152, 155.
[5] Prechtel-Kluskens, “Records,” 21–22; Schultz, “Allegiance”, 153.
[6] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 153.
[7] Fond du Lac County, Admission to Citizenship (Fond du Lac: The District Court of the County of Fond du Lac, 1844–1871), 458.
[8] James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 247.
[9] Kettner, Development, 247.
[10] Fond du Lac County, Admission, 458.
[11] “Alexander Hamilton on the Naturalization of Foreigners,” Population & Development Review 36, no. 1 (2010): 177–178
[12] Brian W. Beltman, “A Dutch Immigrant’s Success Story: E. J. G. Bloemendaal’s Sojourns and Settlement in Northwest Iowa,” The Annals of Iowa 62, no. 2 (2003): 216–217.
[13] Kettner, Development, 246.
[14] “Hamilton”, 178; Schultz, “Allegiance”, 153.
[15] “Hamilton”, 177–178 (Quote from page 177).
[16] Daniels, “Who?”, 23.
[17] “Hamilton”, 181.
[18] Daniels, “Who?”, 23–24 (Quote from page 23).
[19] Fond du Lac County, Admission, 458.
[20] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 153–154 (Quote from 154).
[21] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 152, 155–157 (Quotes from pages 155, 157).
[22] Roger Daniels, “Who is an American?,” The Magazine of Northwest History 28, no. 4 (2014): 23.
[23] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 149, 155 (Quote from page 155).
[24] Fond du Lac County, Admission, 458.
[25] U.S. Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service, An Immigrant Nation: United States Regulation of Immigration, 1798–1991 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Libraries, 1991), Google edition, 4.
[26] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 168
[27] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 157.
[28] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 157.
[29] Daniels, “Who?”, 24.
[30] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 158.
[31] Frank G. Franklin, Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906), Google edition, 247.
[32] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 158–159
[33] Franklin, Legislative, 248.
[34] Daniels, “Who?”, 23.
[35] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 154.
[36] Daniels, “Who?”, 24.
[37] Schultz, “Allegiance”, 158–160, 163–165 (Quotes from 164, 165).
[38] Butterfield, Fond Du Lac, 772.
[39]Butterfield, Fond Du Lac, 1057.
Bibliography
“Alexander Hamilton on the Naturalization of Foreigners.” Population & Development Review 36, no. 1 (2010): 177–82.
Beltman, Brian W.. “A Dutch Immigrant’s Success Story: E. J. G. Bloemendaal’s Sojourns and Settlement in Northwest Iowa.” The Annals of Iowa 62, no. 2 (2003): 201–234.
Butterfield, Consul Willshire. The History of Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin. Chicago: Western Historical Company, 1880. Google edition.
Daniels, Roger. “Who is an American?.” The Magazine of Northwest History 28, no. 4 (2014): 22–26.
Fond du Lac County. Admission to Citizenship. Fond du Lac: The District Court of the County of Fond du Lac, 1844–1871. 458.
Franklin, Frank G. Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906. Google edition.
Kettner, James H.. The Development of American Citizenship 1608–1870. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978.
Lazarus Emma. National Park Service. US Department of the Interior. 1883. Accessed April 10, 2019. www.nps.gov.
Lucas, Henry S.. Dutch Immigrant Memoirs and Related Writings. Assen: Koninklyke Van Gorcum & Company N.V., 1955.
Prechtel-Kluskens, Claire. “The Location of Naturalization Records.” The Record, 3, no. 2 (1996): 21–22.
Schultz, Ronald. “‘Allegiance and Land Go Together’: Automatic Naturalization and the Changing Nature of Immigration in Nineteenth-Century America.” American Nineteenth Century History 12, no. 2 (2011): 149–76.
Smith, Rogers M.. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997.
U.S. Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service. An Immigrant Nation: United States Regulation of Immigration, 1798–1991. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Libraries, 1991. Google edition.
