Introduction Contemporary Asian America is a set of contradictions. Demographically, the rubric of “Asian American” ranges from the sixth-generation descendants of Chinese laborers to the grandchil- dren of survivors of America’s Japanese American concentration camps; from refugees who fled the US. imperial wars in Southeast Asia to contemporary transnational migrants who shuttle between the United States and Asia with financial ease. Proletarian workers from China, Japan, the Philippines, and to a lesser extent Korea and India dominated the earliest migration circuits between Asia and the United States. However, since the passage of the watershed 1965 Hart- Celler Immigration Act, both voluntary and involuntary migrants from across the Asian continent have sought refuge and now live in the United States. Although the verdant agricultural orchards or plantations of America’s west coast or Hawai'i had once beckoned migrants, now they settle in destinations as diverse as the technology hubs of the Silicon Valley to the exurbs of the South. Furthermore, Asian Americans fall across the spectrum of socioeconomic class and educational attainment. According to the Pew Research Center in 2012, for example, the median household income for Asian Americans was $66,000 (for the general public it was only $49,800).' However, that statistic drops precipitously when the data are disaggregated by Asian ethnic group. Whereas a staggering number of Taiwanese Americans hold bachelor’s degrees (73% compared to the gen- eral population's 28%), only about 14% of Hmong Americans have attained an undergraduate degree (Asian Pacific American Legal Center and Asian American Justice Center, 2012). How did Asian America expand from largely working-class base concentrated in Hawai'i and the West Coast to such extraordinary diversity? The political realignments caused by Cold War geopolitics and domestic social policy explain these new contours of Asian America. What follows is not an exhaustive overview of individual Asian immigrant groups, but rather an effort Contributed by Jean-Paul R. de Guzman, © Kendall Hunt Publishing Company Jean-Paul R. deGuzman, PAD, i on the faculty of the Windward School and a lecturer in UCLA’s Asian American Studies department and Interracial Dynamics Cluster Program. "See Pew Research Center 2012). This report generated a great deal of controversy for its framing of Asian Americans as a model minority. a748 + PARTI Historical Overview: Colonization, Immigration, and Assimilation to frame the aforementioned dynamics as a transnational, economic, and political project that takes place within the context of formal and informal U.S. empire, and focuses on the following categories: 1) selective immigration laws, 2) America’s neocolonial relations in the Asia-Pacific region, and 3) the traumas and legacies of war. The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 Following the U.S. victory during World War Il, the race for international supremacy between the United States and the Soviet Union created the structures that set into motion several waves of Asian migration. Beginning in the 1950s, eager to cultivate allies in Asia supportive of US. hegemony in the region, foreign policymakers in Washington, D.C. turned to immigration law as a site of public diplomacy. Critiques of previous anti-Asian exclusion laws and informal accords (eg,, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Gentleman’s Agreement, the Johnson-Reed Act, and the ‘Tydings-McDuffie Act among others) gained greater currency as the United States sought to por- tray itself as a beacon of democracy on the global stage in an era marked by decolonization move- ments across the Third World. As social scientists Paul Ong and John M. Liu argued, “The ability of the United States to enhance its political position hinged on the eradication of the most blatant forms of racism, which many Asian and African countries regarded as an abominable colonial legacy” (Ong & Liu, 1994). Similarly, within the growing tenor of the Civil Rights Movement, immigration law, which, for generations, was based in national origins quotas that prioritized Western Europeans, came under increasing scrutiny. In 1960, the Democratic Party enshrined immigration reform in its platform, stating: “The national-origins quota system of limiting immi- gration contradicts the founding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man.” Reflecting the nation’s own interests, the platform went on to say, “These laws will bring greater skills to our land, reunite families, permit the United States to meet its fair share of world programs of rescue and rehabilitation, and take advantage of immigration as an important factor in the growth of the American economy” (Peters & Woolley, 1960). In Congress, Representative Emmanuel Celler (R-NY) and Senator Philip Hart (D-MI) became the driving force behind a law that would establish preference categories based on skill and family reunification. The bill sought to ameliorate criticisms of the outward racism that undergirded erst- while immigration law while also facilitate the migration of professionals such as engineers and scientists to serve in the U.S. Cold War military-industrial complex. To that end, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished all nationality quotas and instituted a hemisphere-based visa system. The law allowed for the annual migration of 170,000 people from the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 from the Western Hemisphere (Daniels, 2004, p. 134). Out of seven categories half were dedicated to family reunification. Two of the categories prioritized labor: “Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability” and “Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which labor is in short supply” (quoted in Dan- iels, 2004, p. 136). The law reserved the remaining category for refugees and any additional visas. Opposition to the bill nevertheless emerged from fears about the numbers of people of color who would be eligible to migrate and thus disrupt a national identity centered around whiteness. Nationalist organizations such as the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Rev- olution (DAR) led the fight against passage of the law. The president of the DAR, for example, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that abolition of national quotas would hasten a “collapse of moral and spiritual values if non-assimilable aliens of dissimilar ethnic and cultural back- ground are permitted gradually to overwhelm our country” (quoted in Togman, 2001, p. 38). Her focus on perceived assimilability (or lack thereof) and rhetoric of a deluge of immigrants reflectedCHAPTER 4 Reconfiguring Asian America: Asian Immigration to the United States Since 1965 * 49 long-held animus against immigrants, especially Asians who had contributed to the rise of Yellow Peril ideology and outright exclusion a century earlier. Despite those criticisms, the law passed due, in part, to assurances that its provisions were fun- damentally unradical. Policymakers attempted to persuade the public that the family clause would actually bolster European migration, reflective of the general demographics of the United States in the early 1960s. Some policymakers viewed the family reunification provisions as a means to address the exclusion of Southern and Eastern Europeans caused by the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act and the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 (Daniels, 2004, p. 135). Rep. Celler directly addressed the question of Third World migration and stated “Since the people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the US.” (quoted in Ziegler- McPherson, 2012, p. 201). Meanwhile, the skilled labor category ensured that a largely educated workforce would come to the United States and not strain social services. On the day that President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the bill into law, symbolically under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty and a stone's throw from Ellis Island, the historic entry point for European immi- grants in the 19th century, he categorically stated, “This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary Dill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to our wealth or power” (quoted in Daniels, 2004, p. 15) Despite those assurances, however, the Hart-Celler Immigration Act would deeply alter the fabric of the nation’s demography. Due toa variety of circumstances in both Europe and Asia, the prognosis that the Hart-Celler Immigration Act would not alter the face of the United States proved false. As a result of post~ World War II economic prosperity in Western Europe, bolstered by early Cold War diplomacy such as the Marshall Plan, little impetus existed for European immigrants to come to the United States. Moreover, Eastern Europeans, the majority of whom lived in the Soviet Bloc, were forbid- den from migrating. Whereas comparatively few immigrants from Europe availed themselves of the new law, more than 9 million Asians came to the United States between 1966 and 2009 (Lee, 2015, p. 132). As the following section will show, although the Hart-Celler Act may have facili tated that impressive growth, various push factors, often related to economic need and America’s neocolonial presence in Asia, drove that migration. Neocolonial Relationships and Economic Migration Long before the Cold War, the United States had become entangled in Asia through direct and indirect means. As a part of its larger imperial aspirations at the end of the 19th century, the United States conquered the Philippines after a protracted battle between American soldiers and Filipino freedom fighters. Even after the United States ended its formal governance of the archi- pelago in 1946, an unequal power relationship continued: The United States maintained military bases, post-independence trade policies favored American firms, and much of the pro-American colonial educational infrastructure remained in place. Furthermore, as political corruption con- tinued to impede the Philippine economy under President Ferdinand Marcos, more and more Filipinos sought opportunity in the former colonial metropole of America. Within this context, an ‘overeducated population sought migration as a means to achieve economic mobility when those inities were not present in their home countries. One of the most striking examples of economic migration during this time period was that of Filipino nurses. In the two decades after the Hart-Celler Act became law, upwards of 25,000 nurses came to the United States from the Philippines (Choy, 2003). The relationship between the United States and Filipino nurses stretched far beyond the 1965 Act, however. Guided by the pre- cepts of the Progressive Era reform movements and racist discourses of disease among non-white50 * PARTI Historical Overview: Colonization, Immigration, and Assimilation populations, U.S. colonial administrators established various medical and nursing schools in the Philippines beginning in the early 20th century. Slowly many of those nurses trickled into the United States beginning in the 1920s, but it would not be until the 1960s that they would dra- ‘matically reshape the nation’s hospitals as they took positions in highly urbanized or rural areas. South Korea's post-World War II history was also inextricably linked to the United States. As a key component of the containment policy, the United States fought alongside South Korea in it its struggle against the Soviet-backed North Korea. Although an armistice was signed in 1953, the United States continued to exert power over South Korea through its military presence and support for the authoritarian leader Park Chung Hee. Park, who seized power in 1961, squashed political opposition but enjoyed US. largesse as a strategic ally in East Asia. Although Park enacted economic policies that promoted rapid industrialization and bolstered South Korea’s economy, not everyone reaped those benefits. That economic instability, combined with Park's increasingly oppressive regime, led to mass migration, facilitated by the Hart-Celler Act. Indeed, between 1960 and 1970, the number of Koreans in the United States went from 11,200 to 38,700 (Zong & Batalova, 2014). A few decades later, the Asian Financial Crisis wreaked havoc across many of the “Asian Tiger” economies in the late 1990s, which catalyzed another movement of economic migrants from South Korea to the United States. Economic motives continue to inspire Asian immigration, and today thousands of immi- grants have come to these shores often already equipped with transnational capital. They have invested millions of dollars into new spaces such as affluent Asian American “ethnoburbs” in California and have revitalized (and often displaced) existing working-class enclaves such as Los Angeles’s Koreatown (Amam, 2017; Deverteuil, Yun, & Choi, 2017; Li, 2009). Nevertheless, the deep roots of contemporary Asian migration are inseparable from the longer colonial relationship between the United States and Asia The Afterlives of War: Mi and Refugees As the previous section illustrated, much of the U.S. foreign policy history in the 20th century is ‘enmeshed with Asia, due in large part to warfare. The United States began the 20th century locked in the imperialist Philippine American War. A clash of the Japanese and American empires was in ible for World War Il. Then, a generation later, attempts to maintain U.S. hegemony in the Cold War led to involvement in civil wars that took place in Korea and Southeast Asia. Long after military engagements ended, however, the effects of war continued to shape migration. Beginning in the 1950s and lasting for decades, Asian women migrated to the United States ‘en masse as the brides of soldiers, officers, and other men involved with the America’s military presence in Asia. These military brides from Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent the Philippines and Viet Nam came into contact with American men on military bases, camp towns, or civilian spaces beyond. Although often wrongly stigmatized as sex workers (by both Asians and Amer- icans), these women engaged in romantic relationships and marriage for a variety of reasons: to escape the ravages of war, opportunities for adventure, or love and affection. In the face of isola- tion and discrimination in the United States these women nevertheless fashioned communities itary Brides, Transracial Adoptees, *The so-called “Asian Miracle” and “Asian Tiger” countries refer to the accelerated growth of East and Southeast Asian nation-states such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and others, within the context of globalized neoliber- alism beginning in the 1980s. For the Korean case, see Koo 2017).CHAPTER 4 Reconfiguring Asian America: Asian Immigration to the United States Since 1965 51 for themselves. The earliest post-World War II military brides immigrated through special acts of Congress, the War Brides Acts of 1945 and 1946, due to exclusionary immigration laws that were not modified until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act or overturned by the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. His- torian Ji-Yeon Yuh estimates that nearly 100,000 war brides immigrated from Korea alone during the Cold War who would lay the foundation for future migration through family reunification provisions of the Hart-Cellar Act (Yuh, 2002, p. 2). ‘Transracial adoptees comprised another group of Asian immigrants unique to the Cold War era. After the Korean War, large numbers of young Korean orphans were adopted as a part of a larger humanitarian effort that bolstered the US. attempt to appear asa benevolent force in Asia, although ‘upwards of 200,000 orphans have been adopted in both the US. and Europe (Nelson, 2016). The greatest number of migrants from Asia to come as a result of war were refugees from Southeast Asia. America’s policy of containment and fears of the spread of communism led to US. involvement in Viet Nam's civil war as well as combat neighboring nations of Cambodia and Laos. The sheer destruction wrought by the on-the-ground warfare and carpet bombings of civilians almost immediately catalyzed a mass migration of refugees. Historian Chia Youyee Vang found that “From the mid-1970s through early 2010, refugees from the American war [in Southeast Asia] represented nearly half of the 2.9 million people who entered the United States as refugees, of which the Vietnamese were the vast majority” (Vang, 2016, p. 91). This migration from Southeast Asia in its entirety was marked by ethnic and class diversity reflective of the cir- ‘cumstances of the nations from which refugees fled. The first wave of Southeast Asian refugees was comprised of around 100,000 South Vietnam- ‘ese who fled in the immediate communist takeover of Viet Nam in April of 1975. Many of these refugees included a select set of individuals equipped with various forms of social and cultural capital. These individuals often had some form of connection to the US. military or the pro-US. government of South Viet Nam which enabled them to seek refuge in the days immediately lead- ing up to and following the withdrawal of American forces. In many instances these refugees were educated, and their moderate wealth or connections allowed them to escape using either commercial or US. military transportation. The subsequent waves of migration were far more diverse. Unlike the first wave of relatively privileged refugees, the so-called boat people were displaced by the tumultuous political and eco- nomic changes that swept across Viet Nam, during and after 1978. Ethnic Chinese Vietnamese in par- ticular fled in droves fearing recrimination for their position in society often as the petite bourgeoisie. Fleeing persecution, that often-included forced labor, family separations, and removal to communist “re-education” camps, these refugees pooled what little resources they had to escape by sea, often in makeshift, overcrowded boats. In the best circumstances they made safe passage to refugee camps in neighboring countries like the Philippines and Malaysia, or the U.S. Navy intercepted them. In the worst circumstances, they faced starvation, rape, or death at sea, often at the hands of brutal pirates. Critical Refugee Studies scholar Quan Tue Tran notes that some estimates hold that “as many as half a million refugees who had set out from Vietnam did not reach any of the camps” (Tran, 2012). The political turmoil that descended upon Southeast Asia also included the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia whose genocidal campaign led to a mass migration of Cambodian refugees. Motivated to return Cambodia to its agrarian past, dominated by the ancient Angkor empire, the Khmer Rouge emptied cities and enacted a genocide that targeted any perceived enemy of the state: the intelligentsia and professional class, Buddhist monks, anyone with ties to the West, as. well as ethnic minorities such as the Chinese and the Muslim Cham. This chaos reigned in Cam- bodia, which suffered two million deaths under the Khmer Rouge, until 1978 when Vietnamese forces occupied the country. Since then upwards of 100,000 Cambodians have made their way to the United States (Vang, 2016, p. 92).52 * PARTI Historical Overview: Colonization, Immigration, and Assimilation ‘The Hmong people also faced an incredibly precarious situation. An ethnic group concen- trated in Laos, with additional populations in China, Thailand, Myanmar (Burma), and Viet Nam, many Hmong supported pro-US. forces in Laos. When the communist Pathet Lao came to power in Laos after 1975, the Hmong were targeted for retribution and extermination. To escape the violence, Hmong refugees migrated to the United States settling in areas such as Minnesota, Wis- consin, and California’s Central Valley. By 1980 the US. government established an infrastructure through the Orderly Departure and Humanitarian Operation programs, and supported by various nonprofit agencies, to facilitate the migration and settlement of refugees who were unable to migrate through the provisions of the Hart-Celler Act (Chuong & Ta, 2003). Meanwhile the Amerasian Homecoming Act, which was finally implemented in 1989, allowed for the migration of mixed-race children of US. soldiers. Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian refugees found homes in far-flung locations throughout the country, including towns throughout the Midwest, reflective of the Office of Refugee Resettle- ‘ment's goal to disperse communities to avoid financial burdens on any one area, hasten assimila- tion, and prevent the establishment of ethnic enclaves (Mortland & Ledgerwood, 1987). Southeast Asian Americans often bucked that policy, however, to (re)migrate across state lines and build communities such as the Little Saigons along the West Coast (Vo, 2008). Conclusion Today, Asian Americans have the dubious distinction of being the racial group in the United States with the largest income disparity (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018). According to demographer Rakesh Kochhar, “Asians are often depicted as the highest-achieving group in America, but it’s clear they are the most economically divided, with a significant share of Asian Americans lagging well behind lower-income whites” (quoted in Jan, 2018). As this chapter has shown, this phenom- enon is far from accidental. Rather, the staggering diversity within Asian America today isa direct result of selective immigration policies and the global events that have shaped Asian migration to the United States. People of Asian descent have been a part of the American fabric for genera- tions, but due to the power of immigration law, which is inextricably linked to deeper neocolonial relationships and the consequences of war, the boundaries of Asian America have shifted in ways unimaginable generations ago. Now into the third decade of the 21st century, it is unclear what the future contours of Asian migration may be. Although Asian American communities are increasingly ubiquitous in major ‘metropolitan areas, Asian Americans have gained more nuanced representation in mass media, and political participation has increased across the political spectrum, economic disparities across Asian communities persist. Furthermore, due to the Coronavirus crisis that fully hit the United States in the first few months of 2020, a new virulent strain of xenophobia has been unleashed upon Asian Americans. As political brinksmanship in both major parties identify China as an easy scapegoat for domestic woes, it is unclear what such corrosive politics may portend for immigration policy. What is clear, however, is that Asian American political consciousness cannot be extinguished. Following the legacies of the Asian American Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Asian American communities are organizing for greater equity and to stem the tide of anti-Asian animus.CHAPTER 4 Reconfiguring Asian America: Asian Immigration to the United States Since 1965. + 53 References Amam, W. L. 017). Tespassers? Asian Americans and the battle for suburbia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Asian Pacific American Legal Center and Asian American Justice Center. (2012). A community of contrasts: Asian Americans in the United States: 2011. Retrieved from [Link] Choy, C. C. (2003). Empire of care: Nursing and migration in Filipino American history. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ‘Chuong, C. H,, & Ta, M. H. (2003). Overcoming the past and building a future. In E. Lai & D. Arguellas (Eds.), The new face of Asian Pacific America: Numbers, diversity and change in the 21st century (pp. 67-72). San Francisco, CA: Asian Week, UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Organization of Chinese Americans and the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development. Daniels, R. (2004). Guarding the golden door: American immigration policy and immigrants since 1882. New York, NY: Hill and Wang. Deverteuil, G., Yun, O., & Choi, C. 2017). Between the cosmopolitan and the parochial: The immigrant gentrifier in Koreatown, Los Angeles. Social & Cultural Geography, 64-85. Jan, T. (2018, july 12). This racial group has the biggest—and fastest-growing—income divide. Washington Post. Retrieved from _[Link] /business/2018/07/12/this-racial-group-has- biggest-fastest-growing-income-divide/?utm_term=.a35b781919ed Kochhar, R, & Cilluffo, A. (2018, July 12). Income inequality in the U.S. Is rising most rapidly among Asians. Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends. Retrieved from [Link] org /2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/ Koo, H. (2017). The changing faces of inequality in South Korea in the age of globalization. Korean Studies, 31, 1-18, Lee, S. S-H. 2015). Immigration. In C. J. Schlund-Vials, L. T. V6, & K. S. Wong (Eds), Keywords for Asian ‘American studies (p. 132). New York, NY: New York University Press. Li, W. (2009). Ethnoburb: The new ethnic community in urban America. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Mortland, C. A., & Ledgerwood, J.(1987, Fall/Winter). Secondary migration among Southeast Asian refugees in the United States. Urban Anthropology, 16(3/4), 291-326. Nelson, K. P. (2016). invisible Asians: Korean American adoptees, Asian American experiences and racial exceptionalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ‘Ong, P, & Liu, J. M. (1994). US. immigration policies and Asian migration. In P. Ong, E. Bonacich, & L. Cheng (Eds.), The New Asian Immigration in Los Angeles and Global Restructuring (p. 48). Philadelphia, PA: ‘Temple University Press. Peters, G., & Woolley, J. T. (1960, July 11). Democratic party platforms: “1960 Democratic Party Platform.” The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from _hitps://[Link] /documents/1960-democratic-party-platform Pew Research Center. (2012, June 19). The Rise of Asian Americans. Pew Research Center Social and Demographic ‘Trends. Retrieved from hitp:/ / www [Link]/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/ ‘Togman, J. 2001). The rampart of nations: Institutions and immigration policies in France and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger. ‘Tran, Q. T. 2012, Fall). Remembering the boat people exodus: A tale of two memorials. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 7G), 80-121. Vang, C. Y. (2016). Southeast Asian Americans. In D. K. Yoo & E. Azuma (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Asian American history (p. 91). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.54 © PARTII Historical Overview: Colonization, Immigration, and Assimilation Vo, L. T. (2008). Constructing a Vietnamese American community: Economic and political transformation in Little Saigon, Orange County. Amerasia Journal, 34(3), 85-109. Yuh, J.-Y. (2002). Beyond the shadow of Camptown: Korean military brides in America. New York, NY: New York University Press. Ziegler-McPherson, C. A. (2012). Emmanuel Celler/Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In P. J. Hayes (Ed), The making of modern immigration: An encyclopedia of people and ideas (Vol. 1, p. 201). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2014, December 3). Korean immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https:/ /www:[Link] article /korean-immigrants-united-states-2 The 1965 Immigration Act Then and Now Jean-Paul [Link] Donald Trump's jingoistic presidential campaign and subsequent administration has made immigration restriction a cornerstone, often reflecting larger fears over demographic changes that have made the United States a browner nation. The logic of immigration restric- tions based on racial hierarchy that existed before the 1965 Immigration Act, and during debates over its passage, have resurged in recent years. Senator Sam Ervin, a member of the conservative Southern Democratic bloc against immigration reform, insisted upon immi- gration policy that preserved the Western European character of American identity. When confronted with the possibility of African migration, he responded, “With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of Amer- ica” (quoted in Gjelten, 2015). Decades later, in a bipartisan meeting about immigration pol- icy, when the conversation turned to migration from El Salvador, Haiti, and assorted African nations, the president wondered aloud, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Dawsey, 2018). Often, the 1965 Immigration Act and provisions for “chain migration” are also at the center of President Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric that argues current policies allow for unqualified migrants to come to the United States. The irony, of course, is that lawmakers specifically designed the chain migration provision to encourage the migration of Europe- ans. As the contemporary moment shows, debates over immigration have long alternated between moments of inclusion and moments of exclusion, with race all too often playing a significant role. Dawsey, J. (2018, January 25). Trump derides protections for immigrants from “shithole” countries. Washington Post. Retrieved from [Link] trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meet- ing/2018/01/11 /bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?noredirect=onécutm_ term=.a09d96e1d540 Gjelten, T. (2015, October 3). In 1965, a conservative tried to keep America White. His plan backfired. National Public Radio. Retrieved from [Link] org/2015/10/03/445339838 /the-unintended-consequences-of-the-1965-immigration-act