Chain migration has multiple meanings. It refers to the social process by which immigrants from a particular town follow others from that town to a particular city or neighborhood, whether in an immigrant receiving country or in a new, usually urban, location in the home country. The term also refers to the process of foreign nationals immigrating to a new country under laws permitting their reunification with family members already living in the destination country. This mechanism is also known as serial migration.

Chain migration can be defined as a “movement in which prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants.”^[1]

Chain migration and the accumulation of social capital[link]

According to James Coleman, “social capital…is created when the relations among persons change in ways that facilitate action.”^[2] Douglas Massey, Jorge Durand and Nolan J. Malone apply this theory to chain migration, positing that, “each act of migration creates social capital among people to whom the migrant is related, thereby raising the odds of their migration.”^[3] In Massey et al.’s argument, social capital is the tool by which chain migration occurs. It the context of migration, social capital refers to relationships, forms of knowledge and skills that advance one’s potential migration. Massey et al. link their definition to Gunnar Myrdal’s theory of cumulative causation of migration, stating that, “each act of migration alters the social context within which subsequent migration decisions are made, thus increasing the likelihood of additional movement. Once the number of network connections in a community reaches a critical threshold, migration becomes self-perpetuating.”^[4] Therefore, by initiating small social networks of migration, chain migration becomes a larger mass movement in and of itself.

Different forms of chain migration in American history[link]

Different groups of immigrants to the United States throughout its history have employed different strategies to enter, work, and live in America. Some groups, such as Eastern European Jews, emigrated in families en masse from the Russian and Austo-Hungarian Empires of the late nineteenth century. One group of forgotten “immigrants” to America was African slaves brought over forcibly. However, many groups have immigrated to the United States throughout history via chain migration. These social networks for migration are universal and not limited to specific nations, cultures, or crises. Chain migration is an overarching theme of many of the immigration experiences in American history.

Italian immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century relied on a system of both chain and return migration. Chain migration helped Italian men immigrate to the United States for work as migrant laborers. Italians generally left Italy due to dire economic conditions and returned wealthy by Italian standards after working in the United States for a number of years. Italian immigrants were called ritorni^[5] in Italy and grouped with other Southern and Eastern European migrant laborers under the term “birds of passage” in America. However, after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, return migration was limited and led more Italians to become naturalized citizens. The networks that had been built up by information and money due to chain and return migration provided incentives for Italian permanent migration.

Mexican migration to the United States followed some of the same patterns as Italian immigration. The history of Mexican migrant labor in America and return migration to Mexico produced a network that allowed for chain migration once more restrictive legislation was passed hardening the border between the two nations. Chain migration based on the knowledge gained from migrant labor experience and relationships with American residents or citizens again provided some ease of immigration. From 1942 to 1964, the American government sanctioned Bracero Program allowed hundred of thousands of Mexican migrant workers to “familiarize themselves with U.S. employment practices, become comfortable with U.S. job routines, master American ways of life, and learn English,” thereby creating social and human capital.^[6] After the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 disbanded the Bracero Program, the incentives and effects of chain migration perpetuated undocumented immigration to the United States. Absent any of the economic incentives, the Mexican American immigration relationship has a longstanding history and the effects of chain migration are pervasive when considering the number of Mexican American citizens, legal residents, and undocumented residents. Social capital provided by chain migration has helped perpetuate Mexican migration, whether it is undocumented or legal.

While immigrants from European nations during the period before the McCarran–Walter Act of 1952 were able to immigrate legally if with relative levels of ease depending on country of origin, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred almost all Chinese from immigrating to the United States. Nonetheless, many Chinese immigrants arrived in America by obtaining false documents. The Chinese Exclusion Act allowed the Chinese Americans already settled in America to stay and provided for limited numbers of family members of Chinese Americans to immigrate with the correct paperwork. This loophole and the fateful 1906 earthquake that destroyed San Francisco’s public records provided Chinese immigrants, almost entirely men, with the potential to immigrate with false documents stating their familial relationship to a Chinese American.^[7] These Chinese immigrants were called “paper sons,” because of their false papers. “Paper sons” relied on networks built by chain migration to buy documentation, develop strategies for convincing authorities on Angel Island of their legal status, and for starting a life in America.

Ethnic enclaves[link]

The information and personal connections that lead to chain migration lead to transplanted communities from one nation to another. Throughout American history, ethnic enclaves have been built and sustained by immigration. Different ethnic groups claimed distinct physical space in city neighborhoods to provide a reception for chain migration and maintain the community network it created. Examples of this trend include the many neighborhoods called Kleindeutschland, Little Italy, and Chinatown throughout the United States.

The same was true of rural areas in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Some rural towns in the Midwest were founded by immigrants and directly advertised in home countries. This case was especially true for many agricultural German immigrants of the nineteenth century. Certain towns were built on a homogenous group from a particular German principality. Additionally, many of these towns exclusively spoke German until the twentieth century. These enclaves and their contemporaries represent the close relationship between family, community, and immigration.

In the late nineteenth century, distinct Italian provinces and towns immigrated to the United States via chain migration. Regional ties in Italy initially divided Italian ethnic identity in cities like New York, and certain enclaves included only Southern Italians or immigrants from Naples. The community ties remained strong with first generation immigrants concerning social life. These communities were originally composed of only of men who immigrated for work. Once they had made enough money, many Italian men interested in settling began to bring their wives and families to America.^[8]

The effects of Chinese Exclusion and discrimination prevented Chinese residents from assimilating into American society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Those factors, as well as social and cultural ties, precipitated the rise of Chinatowns as ethnic enclaves for Chinese Americans. Chain migration and the pseudo-familial nature of “paper sons” produced a relatively cohesive community that maintained ties with China.

Gender ratios of immigration[link]

Single, young, male laborers were initially the largest group using chain migration to the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, each immigrant group maintained a unique composition due to circumstances in home countries, goals of migration, and American immigration laws. For example, Irish migration after 1880 had a 53.6% female majority, the only migrant group with that distinction.^[9] Irish men and women faced economic crisis, overpopulation, and problematic inheritance laws for large families, thereby compelling many of Ireland’s daughters to leave with her sons. Italian chain migration was initially wholly male based on intent to return, but became a source of family reunification when wives eventually immigrated. Chinese chain migration was almost exclusively male until 1946, when the Chinese War Brides Act allowed Chinese wives of American citizens to immigrate without regards to Chinese immigration quotas. Before that time, chain migration was limited to “paper sons” and actual sons from China. The imbalanced sex ratio of Chinese immigrants was due to Chinese exclusion laws and the inability to bring current wives or to marry and return to the United States, inhibiting the corrective measure of chain migration. When immigrant groups react to economic pull factors in the labor markets, chain migration via family has been used informally to balance out the gender ratio in ethnic immigrant communities.

Remittances[link]

Remittances contribute to chain migration by aiding in both funding and interest in migration. Ralitza Dimova and Francois Charles Wolff argue that besides the recognized benefits remittances provide to the economies of the home countries of immigrants, money sent home can lead to chain migration. Dimova and Wolff posit that remittances can provide the necessary capital.^[10] H. van Dalen et al. “find that recipients of remittances are more likely to consider migrating than non-recipients. This study also references the fact that causes of chain migration through remittances tend to be variable but include such pull factors as family ties and the possibility of success.”^[11]

Besides the monetary remittances sent to families in the home country, immigrants’ letters generally included valuable information about their new life, their work, and information to guide other prospective immigrants in the family or community to ease their journey. Understanding the necessary steps, whether it is what port to leave from or who to seek out to get a job and apartment, was and is vital for successful immigration.

Advertisements[link]

It was common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for companies and even states to advertise to potential European immigrants in their home countries. These advertisements in magazines and pamphlets made information available for immigrants to find travel and decide where to settle once in the United States. Most of the advertising was done in the effort of settling the land in the Midwestern states in the wake of the Homestead Act of 1862. Consequently, many of the peoples whom this propaganda targeted were already living agricultural lives in Northern and Eastern Europe. Additionally, one the chain of migration had begun from a farm town in Europe, the pamphlets along with letters and remittances sent from America made migration an accessible opportunity for more and more of the people of that community. This chain eventually led to partial community transplantation and development of rural ethnic enclaves in the Midwest.

One example of this phenomenon is the chain migration of Czechs to Nebraska in the late nineteenth century. They were attracted by “glowing reports in Czech-language newspapers and magazines published [in Nebraska] and sent back home. Railroads, like the Burlington & Missouri Railroad, advertised large tracks of Nebraska land for sale in Czech.^[12] Many similar advertisements were read in German principalities at the same time, accounting for parallel chain migration to the Great Plains. While the pull factor of these advertisements represent the potential for chain migration, and did in fact produce it, they must be understood within the context of the push factors all potential immigrants weigh when determining to leave their home country. In the case of Czech chain migration to Nebraska and many other similar circumstances in Europe, the various push factors provided the impetus to leave but the pull factors provided by pamphlets and letters provided the chain migration structure to the eventual immigration.

Legislation and chain migration[link]

While the networks and effects of chain migration are in effect regardless of laws limiting immigration, the changing goals and provisions of immigration legislation nonetheless effect how the system of chain migration works. Exclusion and quotas have affected who chain migration draws as potential immigrants as well as how immigrants deal with their status once in the new country. However, family reunification policies in immigration law have served to promote chain migration through extended family visas.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and its successors creating the Asiatic Barred Zone, and the National Origins quota system built by the Immigration Act of 1924 were effective in limiting chain migration but could not end it entirely. Chinese immigrants took advantage of loopholes and false documents to enter the United States until the McCarran–Walter Act of 1952 gave them a migration quota.

Other migrant groups were limited in number by the National Origins quota system, which designated national quotas based on census ratios from 1890.^[13] These ratios heavily favored Western European nations and older migrant groups, such as the English, Irish, and Germans. The ratios attempted to limit the rising number of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. The National Origins quota system provided limited family reunification as a means for chain migration and placed a preference on naturalization. If an immigrant became a U.S. citizen, he or she had the ability obtain non-quota visas for more family members, but as a resident that number was capped annually. Additionally, the Immigration Act of 1924 formally opened the door to chain migration from the entire western hemisphere, placing that group under non-quota status.

The abolition of the National Origins quota system came with the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. This legislation placed a heavy emphasis on family reunification, designating 74% of visas for that purpose. There was no limit on spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens. The percentages for family reunification were as follows: Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens (20%), spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents aliens (20%), married children of U.S. citizens (10%), brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age 21 (24%).^[14] These new visa preferences created a swell of new chain migration and immigration in general. The Third World began to outpace European immigration to America for the first time in history, surpassing it by the end of the 1960s and doubling the numbers of European migration by the end of the 1970s.^[15]

In reaction to the flood of new immigrants brought by the Hart-Celler Act, and increasing numbers of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, Congress attempted to reverse the consequences of the 1965 legislation by enforcing border patrol, using amnesty for undocumented immigrants in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and proposing limits to family reunification policies. The effects of the ending the Bracero Program were increased undocumented Mexican migration because of the social capital gained during that period. Chain migration had provided relatively easy access to migration for Mexicans that the immigration legislation of the 1980s to the present has attempted to deal with.

The current effects of chain migration in the United States[link]

In the United States, the term 'chain migration' is used to partially explain why legal immigration has quadrupled from levels during the 1960s. As such, 'chain migration' is held up as one of the causes of the United States' current immigrant population boom.

Family reunification allows U.S. citizens and immigrants (Lawful Permanent Resident or "Green card" holders) to petition for visas for their immediate relatives. Until the late 1950s, America's family reunification policies included only spouses and minor children of immigrants. However, since that time, family reunification policies of the United States have included the ability of immigrants to sponsor not only their minor children and spouses, but also their parents, siblings, and adult children.

According to the theory of 'chain migration' as applied to immigrants to the United States, subsequent immigrant Lawful Permanent Resident parents and adult children can, in turn, sponsor their other children, parents, etc., thus representing a chain of immigrants following the first family member into the country. In practice, however, the wait times from when the petition is filed until the adult relative is able to enter the U.S. can be as long as 15–20 years (as of 2006). This is a result of backlogs in obtaining a visa number and visa number quotas that only allow 226,000 family-based visas to be issued annually. There are four family-based preference levels:^[16]

First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:

A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

Backlogs in obtaining visa numbers range from four-and-a-half years (for preference level 2A) to 23-years (for preference level 4 immigrants from the Philippines).

While some backlogs have remained relatively steady for some time, since 1995, backlogs for other family-sponsored preferences have steadily increased. For first preference, adult children of U.S. citizens, for instance, the backlog for a visa number has increased from zero in 1995 to over 6½ years today.

• 

  Visa Number Backlog for 1st and 2nd preferences, 1995–2009

Problems associated with chain migration[link]

Currently there is a movement against chain migration and its effects. Specifically, the family reunification emphasis of the Hart-Celler Act had the unintended consequence of dramatically increasing levels of migration in general and chain migration in particular. FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative think tank, promotes the idea that, “chain migration-and the expectations and long lines it produces-increases illegal immigration.^[17] Additionally FAIR argues that, “illegal aliens given amnesty by Congress in 1986 are now fueling naturalization in record numbers. As these former illegal aliens become citizens, all of their immediate relatives qualify to come immediately to the United States, and start new migration chains of their own.”

NumbersUSA, a group that lobbies Congress for lower levels of immigration, states that, “one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life."^[18] NumbersUSA cites the tradition of chain migration to America as a main cause for creating incentives for undocumented immigration.

NumbersUSA, FAIR, and other groups are working to change immigration law to limit chain migration favor. NumbersUSA cites a specific bill it supports. “On Feb. 4, 2009, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced the Nuclear Family Priority Act (H.R. 878). The bill would eliminate the extended family visa categories (e.g., married sons and daughters of citizens, etc.), thus ending “chain migration” as recommended by the bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission in 1997.”^[19]

Some academics agree. Massey et al. argue that while immediate family immigration provisions were created to promote and stabilize the family unit in American immigration and society, family reunification visas for extended family, such as adult siblings, are unnecessary when faced with rising immigration numbers.^[20] Massey et al. support eliminating those quotas.

References[link]

See also[link]

• Remittances
• Family reunification
• Immigration Act of 1924
• Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
• Bracero Program
• Chinese Exclusion Act
• Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
• Immigration reduction
• Immigration reform
• K-1 visa
• Immigration to the United States

Barbara Jordan
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 18th district
In office January 3, 1973 – January 3, 1979
Succeeded by	Mickey Leland
Texas State Senator from District 11
In office 1967–1973
Preceded by	William T. "Bill" Moore
Succeeded by	Chet Brooks
Personal details
Born	Barbara Charline Jordan (1936-02-21)February 21, 1936 Houston, Texas
Died	January 17, 1996(1996-01-17) (aged 59) Austin, Texas
Resting place	Texas State Cemetery Austin, Texas
Political party	Democratic
Profession	Attorney
Religion	Baptist

Barbara Charline Jordan (February 21, 1936 – January 17, 1996) was an American politician and a leader of the Civil Rights movement. She was the first African American elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction and the first southern black female elected to the United States House of Representatives. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among numerous other honors. On her death she became the first African-American woman to be buried in the Texas State Cemetery.

Early life[link]

Barbara Jordan was born in Houston, Texas' Fifth Ward.^[1] Her parents were Benjamin Jordan, a Baptist minister; and Arlyne Jordan, a "domestic worker".^[1] Barbara attended Roberson Elementary School.^[1] She graduated from Phillis Wheatley High School in 1952 as an honor student.^[1][2]

Because of segregation, she did not attend The University of Texas at Austin and instead chose Texas Southern University, majoring in political science and history. Barbara was a national champion debater, defeating her opponents from such schools as Yale and Brown and tying Harvard University.^[1] She graduated magna cum laude in 1956.^[1][2] At Texas Southern University, she pledged Delta Sigma Theta sorority.^[1] She attended Boston University School of Law, graduating in 1959.^[1][2]

Career[link]

Jordan taught political science at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama for a year.^[1] In 1960, she returned to Houston, passed the bar and started a private law practice.^[1]

Jordan campaigned unsuccessfully in 1962 and 1964 for the Texas House of Representatives.^[3] Her persistence won her a seat in the Texas Senate in 1966, becoming the first African American state senator since 1883 and the first black woman to serve in that body.^[3] Re-elected to a full term in the Texas Senate in 1968, she served until 1972. She was the first African-American female to serve as president pro tem of the state senate and served one day, June 10, 1972, as acting governor of Texas.

In 1972, she was elected to Congress, the first woman to represent Texas in the House in her own right. She received extensive support from former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who helped her secure a position on the House Judiciary Committee. In 1974, she made an influential, televised speech before the House Judiciary Committee supporting the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Johnson's successor as President.

In 1976, Jordan, mentioned as a possible running mate to Jimmy Carter of Georgia,^[3] became instead the first African-American woman to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.^[3] Her speech in New York that summer was ranked 5th in "Top 100 American Speeches of the 20th century" list and was considered by some historians^[who?] to have been among the best convention keynote speeches in modern history.^{[citation needed]} Despite not being a candidate, Jordan received one delegate vote (0.03%) for President at the convention.^{[citation needed]}

Jordan retired from politics in 1979 and became an adjunct professor teaching ethics at the University of Texas at Austin Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. She again was a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 1992.

In 1994 and until her death in 1996, Jordan chaired the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which advocated increased restriction of immigration, called for all U.S. residents to carry a national identity card and increased penalties on employers that violated U.S. immigration regulations.^[4][5] Then-President Clinton endorsed the Jordan Commission's proposals.^[6] While she was Chair of the US Commission on Immigration Reform she argued that "it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” Her stance on immigration is cited by opponents of current US immigration policy who cite her willingness to penalize employers who violate US immigration regulations, to tighten border security, and to oppose amnesty or any other pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants^{[citation needed]} and to broaden the grounds for the deportation of legal immigrants.^[7]

Legislation[link]

Jordan supported the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, legislation that required banks to lend and make services available to underserved poor and minority communities. She supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and expansion of that act to cover language minorities. This extended protection to Hispanics in Texas and was opposed by Texas Governor Dolph Briscoe and Secretary of State Mark White.

Personal life[link]

In 1973, Jordan began to suffer from multiple sclerosis. She had a difficulty climbing stairs, and she started using a cane and eventually a wheelchair. She kept the state of her health out of the press so well that in the KUT radio documentary Rediscovering Barbara Jordan, President Bill Clinton stated that he wanted to nominate Jordan for the United States Supreme Court, but by the time he could do so, Jordan's health problems prevented him from nominating her.^[8] Jordan later also suffered from leukemia.^[2]

Jordan's partner of close to 30 years was Nancy Earl. Jordan met Earl, an educational psychologist who would become an occasional speech writer in addition to Jordan's partner, on a camping trip in the late 1960s.^[2][3] Jordan never publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation, but in her obituary, the Houston Chronicle mentioned her long relationship with Earl.^[9][10] However, one of Jordan's biographers, Mary Beth Rogers, neither confirmed nor denied that the former congresswoman was a lesbian, commenting that there were many reasons to explain why Jordan was so intensely private about her personal life.^[11] After Jordan's initial unsuccessful statewide races, advisers warned her to become more discreet and not bring any female partners on the campaign trail.^[3][12]

Awards, honors and memorials[link]

In 1993, Jordan was honored with the Elizabeth Blackwell Award from Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Jordan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994. The many other honors given to her include her election into both the Texas and National Women's Hall of Fame; she was awarded the prestigious United States Military Academy's Sylvanus Thayer Award, becoming only the second female awardee.

Upon her death on January 17, 1996, Jordan lay in state at the LBJ Library on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. She was buried in the Texas State Cemetery in Austin, and was the first black woman interred there. Her papers are housed at the Barbara Jordan Archives at Texas Southern University.

The main terminal at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is named after her, as are an elementary school in Odessa, Texas, a middle school in Cibolo, Texas; and Barbara Jordan High School in Houston. The Kaiser Family Foundation currently operates the Barbara Jordan Health Policy Scholars, a fellowship designed for people of color who are college juniors, seniors, and recent graduates as a summer experience working in a congressional office.

On March 27, 2000, a play on Jordan's life premièred at the Victory Garden Theater in Chicago, Illinois.^[13] Titled, "Voice of Good Hope", Kristine Thatcher's biographical evocation of Jordan's life played in theaters from San Francisco to New York.^[14]

On April 24, 2009, a Barbara Jordan statue was unveiled at the University of Texas at Austin, where Jordan taught at the time of her death. The Barbara Jordan statue campaign was paid for by a student fee increase approved by the University of Texas Board of Regents. The effort was originally spearheaded by the 2002–2003 Tappee class of the Texas Orange Jackets, the "oldest women's organization at the University" (of Texas at Austin).^[15]

Many of Jordan's speeches have been collected in a 2007 publication from the University of Texas Press, Barbara Jordan: Speaking the Truth with Eloquent Thunder."^[16]

In her namesake, the Jordan/Rustin Coalition (JRC) was created in California in 2000. This organization seeks to mobilize gay and lesbian African Americans to aid in the passage of marriage equality in the state of California. Along with Bayard Rustin, a civil rights leader and close confidante of Martin Luther King, Jr., Barbara Jordan is remembered for her advocacy of progressive politics. According to its website, "the mission [of the JRC] is to empower Black same-gender loving, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Greater Los Angeles, to promote equal marriage rights and to advocate for fair treatment of everyone without regard to race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

In 2011, actor/playwright Jade Esteban Estrada portrayed Jordan in the solo musical comedy ICONS: The Lesbian and Gay History of the World, Vol. 5 which includes the song "Nancy's Eyes" sung by the character of Jordan with music and lyrics by Estrada.

Gallery[link]

• 

  Barbara Jordan Memorial at UT Austin

• 

  Barbara Jordan standing at a podium in doctoral regalia

• 

  Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, April 7, 1976

See also[link]

	Houston portal
	Biography portal
	Politics portal
	African American portal

• U.S. Constitution, defender of the Constitution
• History of the African-Americans in Texas

References[link]

External links[link]

• Barbara Jordan at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Jordan's Statement on the Articles of Impeachment During the Nixon Impeachment Hearings in Text and Audio from AmericanRhetoric.com
• Jordan's 1976 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address in Text and Audio from AmericanRhetoric.com
• Jordan's 1992 Democratic National Convention Address in Text and Audio from AmericanRhetoric.com
• Barbara Jordan, Governor of Texas for a day, program of ceremonies, June 10, 1972, hosted by the Portal to Texas History
• Interview with Max Sherman, editor of Barbara Jordan – Speaking the Truth with Eloquent Thunder on kaisernetwork.org
• Oral History Interviews with Barbara Jordan, from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library
• The Texas Experience - Barbara Jordan Presents Lyndon Baines Johnson , from the Texas Archive of the Moving Image

Mark Levin
Levin speaks at an Americans for Prosperity conference in 2011
Birth name	Mark Reed Levin
Born	(1957-09-21) September 21, 1957 (age 54) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Show	The Mark Levin Show
Station(s)	WABC
Network	Cumulus Media Networks
Time slot	6-9 p.m. EST
Style	Talk radio
Country	United States
Website	marklevinshow.com

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a lawyer, author and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin served in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has authored bestselling books and contributes commentary to various media outlets such as National Review Online.^[1]

Biography[link]

Mark Reed Levin was born to a Jewish family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and grew up in Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Cheltenham High School after three years.^[2][3] After high school, Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler including summer classes and graduated in 1977 at age 19, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.^[4] He also earned a juris doctorate from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 1980.^[5]

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.

Levin is married to Kendall Levin.^[6] They have two children, Lauren (born 1988) and Chase (born 1991).^[7]

Levin has participated in Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid families of fallen soldiers, and he uses his radio program to promote same.^[8][9] Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity which sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.^[10]

In 2001, the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award.^[11]

Radio broadcasting[link]

Levin began his broadcast career as a guest on conservative talk radio programs. For many years he was a frequent contributor of legal opinions to The Rush Limbaugh Show, where Limbaugh referred to him on-air as "F. Lee Levin," a tongue-in-cheek reference to the famous defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was also a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show and eventually got a radio slot of his own on WABC, following Sean Hannity's program. Hannity has nicknamed Mark Levin "The Great One".^[12] Levin and Hannity remain frequent contributors to each other's programs.

Writer[link]

[edit] Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America

Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In her review of Men in Black, Slate magazine's legal correspondent and journalist Dahlia Lithwick wrote that "no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book."^[13] In contrast, a review in the Defense Counsel Journal described Men in Black as "a forceful indictment of what Levin identifies as an increasingly 'activist' court for amending our national Constitution in the guise of construing it."^[14]

[edit] Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish

In 2007, Levin released a book about his dogs, Pepsi and Sprite. Specifically, the book was about Sprite, a Spaniel mix that his wife and son persuaded him to adopt from the local shelter in 2004. The book was titled Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish. Rescuing Sprite chronicles Sprite’s health deterioration in 2006 and how Levin and his family dealt with their loss.

[edit] Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released on March 24, 2009, and became a No. 1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks,^[15] as well as No. 1 on Nielsen's BookScan.^[16] It comes in at No. 2 on Amazon.com's list of bestselling books of 2009.^[17] The book includes discussion of a variety of issues that, according to Levin, need to be addressed in the United States. Liberty and Tyranny has sold over one million copies according to Threshold Editions, the book's publisher.^[18] Former federal prosecutor and fellow National Review Online author Andrew C. McCarthy wrote of Liberty and Tyranny in The New Criterion:

We are in the high tide of America’s Leftist ascendancy: the Obama evisceration of individual freedom and installation of authoritarian collectivism—at warp speed, driven by an ambition that would have made Woodrow Wilson and FDR blush. Against this tidal wave, Levin offers not so much a defense as a plan of attack, a clarion call to roll back the seas of Change.^[19]

Taking a contrary view, Steve Almond of Salon wrote that

... the tantalizing beauty of a Mark Levin text resides precisely in this ability to attribute any crisis of State to its nefarious indulgences. The current economic meltdown, for instance, should not be blamed on the psychotic greed of Wall Street, but on the State's deranged need to throw money at the poor and undeserving.^[20]

[edit] Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America was released January 17, 2012. Amazon's publication notes describe this book as exploring "the psychology, motivations, and history of the utopian movement, its architects, and its modern day disciples – and how the individual and American society are being devoured by it."^[21]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Mark Levin Show, The Official Mark Levin Website
• marklevinshow Twitter feed
• Mark Levin on Facebook
• The Official Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind
• Landmark Legal Foundation
• Mark Levin is on the air from NationalReview.com
• C-SPAN Q&A interview with Levin, October 19, 2008