Crisis often always reveal how nations define belonging and this week’s readings show that policy surrounding immigration in the early 20th century was not just about control but also who counted as part of the nation.
Reinecke argues that WWI did not suddenly produce immigration systems that were restricted but rather accelerated already existing trends. Britain had already begun to limit their immigration with the 1905 Aliens Act, and expand their state’s power and control dramatically. The government was able to find new ways to monitor and control “aliens” both at the border and within the country itself through the use of registrations, identifying documents, and increased surveillance. By the 1920s, even liberal states like Britain had built a strong bureaucratic system of immigration control that was strict and heavily enforced.
Elisa Camiscioli wrote on France and highlighted a different but related shift. After the demographic crisis that arose after World War I, French policymakers decided that immigrants were not just workers but had the potential to be reproducers of the nation. Beliefs surrounding immigrants began to be tied to race, gender, and national survival, with certain groups seen as “assimilable” and others excluded. Immigration policy, in this sense, became about shaping a future population, not just managing labour.
Both of these readings show that crisis intensified concerns about identity which led the states to more actively define and regulate belonging within their respective nations. This is relevant for my research project on Jewish resilience during the Blitz. While the Blitz is oftentimes remembered as a unified experience (sometimes referred to as “Blitz spirit”), this narrative can overlook minority experiences. Jewish communities had long been established in Britain and many had been shaped by earlier migration and restrictive policies. Despite them still being part of the national resilience, they also existed within systems that continued to categorize and monitor them.
Reinecke’s focus on bureaucratic control is especially useful here. Systems that were developed during World War I did not simply disappear but shaped how populations and people were understood during World War II. This raises questions surrounding the experience of Jewish Londoners: Where they apart of the unified national community, or within a framework that still marked them as different, or both?
Ultimately, these readings suggest that belonging is never a fixed idea within a nation. In times of national crisis, it is often reconstructed and often unevenly experienced.