Ngai Questions...

Historiography: In her introduction, Ngai claims that her work (in addition to everything else going on here) is also a critique of nationalism. In fact, she claims that this critique is accomplished through a globalist perspective (10). This being the case, would this part of her work have benefited from a discussion of other nations' immigration laws? Would this type of discussion have clarified American motivations and behavior in this era given the transnational character of the individuals entering into the US during this time? Also, by bringing in this international law discussion, would this have strengthened her argument? How does this additional component help to characterize the immigrant themselves? Given that nationalism is a large component of an immigrant's ethnic identity and it's constantly in flux, would an examination of their native country's immigration legislation have helped to characterize them in a more appropriate way to benefit her other points of racism, immigration policy, economic incentive,etc?

History: What roles do Filipinos and Japanese in Ngai's analysis of "illegal aliens"? Filipinos were considered "nationals" which was unique in that they were legally able to reside in the country but had no rights as citizens or residents (100). Japanese citizens were in fact citizens with full rights alongside Germans and other Axis powers during WWII. Yet, many Japanese Nisei were committed to internment camps which limited their status as full citizens (200-01). There is little doubt that these individuals were in the country legally, but are they "illegal aliens"? If not, how do these unique cases of peoples fit into the history of immigration? In addition, (and this is actually the history part of the question) what do these situations say about Filipino and Japanese agency? Are both given the proper consideration in their acting on their own to affect changes? For the Japanese, this is probably so, but what about the Filipinos?