US Accepts Indochina Refugees

The US policy towards Cuba was very welcoming towards refugees from the island.

Between 1975 and 1997 the US took in 1.3 million people from Indochina. What if President Nixon opted to open the floodgates with regard to Indochinese migrants, seeing the refugees as "good anticommunists"?

One interesting tidbit is that most Hoa (chinese in Vietnam) went to China historically. They controlled most of the businesses in Saigon and were a very very successful and entrepreneurial demographic in the country. If they largely went to the US, they could have a very positive effect on the US economy.
 

Driftless

Donor
I think one part of the issue was that there were decades long associations on several levels with people of Cuba: business, political, sport, and cultural. Cuba is in our backyard. That long association wasn't there for the various groups from Indochina. Our involvement with that area was relatively recent and unsuccessful. That, and the US government and popular opinion decidedly wanted to distance ourselves from the Vietnam War in all forms.

The Hmong people were one of the Indochinese groups that did get to my part of the US (Wisconsin), was first by trickles; meeting with significant initial political and bureaucratic resistance and pockets of bigotry. Large numbers of that community had been recruited by the CIA, mainly in Laos to help with clandestine work against the North Vietnamese. After the war wound down, the Hmong were decidedly personna non-grata to both the victorious North Vietnamese who were often brutal in their treatment of the Hmong and the US government - we tried to suppress much knowledge of the length and depth of our association with that indirect warfare.

The Hmong were largely very small scale farmers, which didn't translate well to the US work environment of the late 70's and on. Those who did arrive in the US (mainly California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin at first) struggled to fit in - as most first round immigrants do. Now that they're well into the third generation here, their acceptance and integration is much improved. In my area, they maintain active efforts to retain elements of their cultural identity - again, like most immigrant groups.
 
I think one part of the issue was that there were decades long associations on several levels with people of Cuba: business, political, sport, and cultural. Cuba is in our backyard. That long association wasn't there for the various groups from Indochina. Our involvement with that area was relatively recent and unsuccessful. That, and the US government and popular opinion decidedly wanted to distance ourselves from the Vietnam War in all forms.

The Hmong people were one of the Indochinese groups that did get to my part of the US (Wisconsin), was first by trickles; meeting with significant initial political and bureaucratic resistance and pockets of bigotry. Large numbers of that community had been recruited by the CIA, mainly in Laos to help with clandestine work against the North Vietnamese. After the war wound down, the Hmong were decidedly personna non-grata to both the victorious North Vietnamese who were often brutal in their treatment of the Hmong and the US government - we tried to suppress much knowledge of the length and depth of our association with that indirect warfare.

The Hmong were largely very small scale farmers, which didn't translate well to the US work environment of the late 70's and on. Those who did arrive in the US (mainly California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin at first) struggled to fit in - as most first round immigrants do. Now that they're well into the third generation here, their acceptance and integration is much improved. In my area, they maintain active efforts to retain elements of their cultural identity - again, like most immigrant groups.

What are your thoughts on the movie Gran Torino?
 

Driftless

Donor
What are your thoughts on the movie Gran Torino?

Been a while since I saw it, but it does hit some of the experience, I think. I'm in a rural part of western Wisconsin, but even here we've had some ethnic gang activity - where (mostly) young folks feel cut off and alienated, so they make their own rules - which ends badly. Maybe I'm out of touch with the reality of the current situation, but I think as the Hmong are relatively more integrated now, that the ethnic gangs are fading, to be replaced by the professionals.... I also saw some parallels in one of my uncles to Eastwood's character of Walt. He was the classic small town bigot - bias based on preconceived opinion with no personal direct knowledge of people he despised. Unlike Walt Kowalski, my uncle never came around in his bias.
 
Keep in mind that the normal supporters of refugee resettlement in the US were in many ways hostile to the Indochina refugees. McGovern demagogued about, especially the Saigon ones, as being "fascists", and prominent Democrats like Barbara Jordan, John Lewis, and John Conyers thought they were going to take jobs from black workers.

The normal opposition to refugees was there (too fast demographic change, too centralized, bad impact on the working class, etc.) and that was normal, to an extent, as it had always been and always would be a part of the debate.

The abnormal part of the debate was on the political character of the refugees themselves. They were castigated as being decadent and corrupt, authoritarian and evil, and much of this was I believe a reflection of political biases at the time. When Bella Abzug claimed that the resettlement was merely a pretext for a reinvasion of the South, and that the refugees were better off in Vietnam (despite knowing full well about the reeducation camps), it touched on something that went beyond logistics of resettlement.
 
That a large portion of the initial refugees were Catholic helped. The later immigrants had a larger portion of Buddhists which in larger numbers would develop opposition from the Chritian fundamentalists I'm acquainted with. How that might be reflected across the US I can't say.
 
If there's perceived to be a huge refugee crisis in the early 1970s, with many more Southeast Asians being admitted to the United States than IOTL leading to a resultant nativist backlash, I can sadly imagine The Camp of the Saints becoming a bigger success in America ITTL.
 
Keep in mind that the normal supporters of refugee resettlement in the US were in many ways hostile to the Indochina refugees. McGovern demagogued about, especially the Saigon ones, as being "fascists", and prominent Democrats like Barbara Jordan, John Lewis, and John Conyers thought they were going to take jobs from black workers.

Could the idea that they'd be loyal Republican voters (which is largely true) perhaps help to get them GOP support?

The normal opposition to refugees was there (too fast demographic change, too centralized, bad impact on the working class, etc.) and that was normal, to an extent, as it had always been and always would be a part of the debate.

The abnormal part of the debate was on the political character of the refugees themselves. They were castigated as being decadent and corrupt, authoritarian and evil, and much of this was I believe a reflection of political biases at the time. When Bella Abzug claimed that the resettlement was merely a pretext for a reinvasion of the South, and that the refugees were better off in Vietnam (despite knowing full well about the reeducation camps), it touched on something that went beyond logistics of resettlement.

That's disgusting and horrifying.
 
Keep in mind that the normal supporters of refugee resettlement in the US were in many ways hostile to the Indochina refugees. McGovern demagogued about, especially the Saigon ones, as being "fascists", and prominent Democrats like Barbara Jordan, John Lewis, and John Conyers thought they were going to take jobs from black workers.

The normal opposition to refugees was there (too fast demographic change, too centralized, bad impact on the working class, etc.) and that was normal, to an extent, as it had always been and always would be a part of the debate.

The abnormal part of the debate was on the political character of the refugees themselves. They were castigated as being decadent and corrupt, authoritarian and evil, and much of this was I believe a reflection of political biases at the time. When Bella Abzug claimed that the resettlement was merely a pretext for a reinvasion of the South, and that the refugees were better off in Vietnam (despite knowing full well about the reeducation camps), it touched on something that went beyond logistics of resettlement.

A interesting aspect would what if Europe instead took in a higher number of Vietnamese refugees?
 

Driftless

Donor
There was limited base in the US, from the "old country" working on behalf of these disparate groups: Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laos, ethnic Chinese, etc; along with the differing religious affiliations (as noted above) from Catholics, to Buddhist, to other localized traditional forms. Refuges from various parts of Europe following WW2 - to some extent - had longer standing organizations that provided some connections to the political and cultural powers.
 
Last edited:
Generally second & third generations after immigration tend towards conservative or at least centrist voting patterns. Hard working, religious, and family oriented ethnic groups usually eschew leftist politicians. The same can occur with the Viet or SE Asians. However the nativist trend within the Republican party may alienate the Asian descendants as it has many middle class Hispanic voters. This could both mean more voters supporting Democratic candidates, and more votes for moderate Republican candidates in the primaries.
 
Generally second & third generations after immigration tend towards conservative or at least centrist voting patterns. Hard working, religious, and family oriented ethnic groups usually eschew leftist politicians. The same can occur with the Viet or SE Asians. However the nativist trend within the Republican party may alienate the Asian descendants as it has many middle class Hispanic voters. This could both mean more voters supporting Democratic candidates, and more votes for moderate Republican candidates in the primaries.
It is more that there is a leavening towards the center with most immigrants. Most Cuban and Vietnamese and Korean immigrants start out quite conservative because of anti-Communist beliefs and as the generations go on, it dissipates in that the visceral feelings regarding uprooting disappear and assimilation occurs, with more 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants reflecting the population at large.

It was certainly true that Northeastern and Midwest Catholic immigrants to the US started off very Democratic leaning and over time became more comfortable voting Republican.

An interesting trend, however, with Mexican and Latin American immigrants, is that in the 3rd generation, they regress socioeconomically speaking, with less success happening for the 3rd generation than for the 2nd. There are a lot of reasons bandied about for why this may be the case (a reflection of the skills gap exacerbated by the knowledge based economy, the wipe out of housing assets in Hispanic heavy places like Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada in the recession, competition with even more recent Hispanic immigrants, etc.), but even taking those into account, it is still unusual.

Rather, the voting splits in the Mexican-American community are more representative of those of the wider population. If you are a homeowner or an Evangelical Protestant in the US, you are quite likely to vote Republican. The same goes for Mexican-American immigrants. That is why the GOP in Texas has been able to cultivate a sizable bloc of Hispanic Republicans, because many of the megachurches (John Hagee, Joel Osteen, etc.) took in a lot of Hispanic immigrants into their communities and converted them from Catholicism, and because the state GOP in Texas aggressively tries to make housing cheap and plentiful through zoning deregulation and extension of building permits, which disproportionately effect Hispanics and their ability to get homes.
 
It is more that there is a leavening towards the center with most immigrants. Most Cuban and Vietnamese and Korean immigrants start out quite conservative because of anti-Communist beliefs and as the generations go on, it dissipates in that the visceral feelings regarding uprooting disappear and assimilation occurs, with more 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants reflecting the population at large.

It was certainly true that Northeastern and Midwest Catholic immigrants to the US started off very Democratic leaning and over time became more comfortable voting Republican.

An interesting trend, however, with Mexican and Latin American immigrants, is that in the 3rd generation, they regress socioeconomically speaking, with less success happening for the 3rd generation than for the 2nd. There are a lot of reasons bandied about for why this may be the case (a reflection of the skills gap exacerbated by the knowledge based economy, the wipe out of housing assets in Hispanic heavy places like Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada in the recession, competition with even more recent Hispanic immigrants, etc.), but even taking those into account, it is still unusual.

Rather, the voting splits in the Mexican-American community are more representative of those of the wider population. If you are a homeowner or an Evangelical Protestant in the US, you are quite likely to vote Republican. The same goes for Mexican-American immigrants. That is why the GOP in Texas has been able to cultivate a sizable bloc of Hispanic Republicans, because many of the megachurches (John Hagee, Joel Osteen, etc.) took in a lot of Hispanic immigrants into their communities and converted them from Catholicism, and because the state GOP in Texas aggressively tries to make housing cheap and plentiful through zoning deregulation and extension of building permits, which disproportionately effect Hispanics and their ability to get homes.
This. While Wilson's Prop 187 policy gives some explanation as to why Latinos are a reliable Democratic voting bloc in California, most of it is that Latinos in the state over time are on average blue collar workers, which was taken advantage of by a long history of labor activism, even before Cesar Chavez. For all the ballyhooing about immigrants as voting for one party or another, in the end what matters most partywise is social class.

Likewise, you see a similar weakening of Republican ties among Vietnamese Americans in California, as they integrate into society andcstart prioritizing class interests.
 
Top