
Shanahan applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Disparate Regimes: Nativist Politics, Alienage Law, and Citizenship Rights in the United States, 1865–1965, and reported the following:
Readers who jump ahead to page 99 of Disparate Regimes will read an excerpt that gets to the heart of the major themes, recurring methodologies, representative historical episodes, and chronological hinge points of the book (though they may find themselves thrown in the proverbial deep end without important context developed in the surrounding pages).Learn more about Disparate Regimes at the Oxford University Press website.
Page 99 examines two political and legal disputes in Progressive Era Massachusetts. Both centered on the Bay State constitution’s long-standing anti-alien apportionment provision (a policy which counted noncitizens out of the population for the purposes of redrawing state legislative seats). Much of the page examines efforts in 1916 by James Brennan, then a leading Democratic politician and powerbroker in Boston, to gum up the operation of – if not outright flout – the implementation of the state’s anti-alien apportionment policy. As chairman of the commission responsible for reapportioning state House seats to the various wards of Suffolk County (home to Boston), Brennan offered numerous extraconstitutional reasons for trying to assign extra seats to his own district and wards represented by his political allies. These neighborhoods often had large noncitizen immigrant populations, which were not supposed to be counted for the purposes of state legislative representation. Brennan’s efforts proved unsuccessful, with his political adversaries scoring multiple victories against his plans in court. The page concludes by jumping ahead to 1917. It shows how Brennan tried (and ultimately failed) to convince his fellow lawmakers to repeal the state’s anti-alien apportionment policy as a delegate to the Bay State’s World War I-era constitutional convention.
Though a bit more technical than most of the book’s pages, page 99 offers a representative window into Disparate Regimes as a whole. My book shows how state governments retained significant power and exercised discrete powers to shape the rights of noncitizen immigrants in the United States between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era, a century often portrayed as a time of ascendant federal authority in matters pertaining to immigrants and immigration. It does so by examining how state politicians, jurists, and constituents (from blue-collar nativists and members of professional associations to immigrant workers and their advocates) battled over the passage and implementation of a range of alienage laws (policies governing the rights of noncitizens vis-à-vis citizens).
I argue that debates over state noncitizen voting rights policies, anti-alien apportionment provisions, blue-collar nativist hiring laws, and anti-alien professional licensing measures produced disparate regimes of citizenship rights on a state-by-state basis between the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I further contend that continued disputes over the adoption, repeal, and/or enforcement of such policies helped to invent and concretize the idea that citizenship rights meant citizen-only rights in the American political economy by the mid-twentieth century in law, politics, and popular perception. Page 99 thus gets to the core of the book’s overarching arguments and illustrates their importance by zooming into two representative historical episodes.
--Marshal Zeringue